<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:dc="https://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
     xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
>
    <channel>
                    <atom:link href="https://www.tomshardware.com/feeds/tag/intel-core-i5-8400" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
                            <title><![CDATA[ Latest from Tom's Hardware in Intel-core-i5-8400 ]]></title>
                <link>https://www.tomshardware.com/tag/intel-core-i5-8400</link>
        <description><![CDATA[ All the latest intel-core-i5-8400 content from the Tom's Hardware team ]]></description>
                                    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Nov 2023 13:25:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
                            <language>en</language>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ CPU Benchmarks and Hierarchy 2026: CPU Rankings ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ All of today's desktop CPU benchmarks compared, including Intel's 13th-Gen Core series and AMD's Ryzen Zen 4 and Threadripper. ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">V7teKs7ev9p3jsgMmVR9A</guid>
                                                                                                <enclosure url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7FRLCpVusR9om4FiGDuPyG-1280-80.jpg" type="image/jpeg" length="0"></enclosure>
                                                                        <pubDate>Sat, 18 Nov 2023 13:25:13 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                <updated>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:25:49 +0000</updated>
                                                                                                                                            <category><![CDATA[CPUs]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[PC Components]]></category>
                                                                                                                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ Jake Roach ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                    <dc:source><![CDATA[ https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/h6PRM8bTimCTnNfoAYfjAi.jpg ]]></dc:source>
                                                                <dc:description><![CDATA[ &lt;p&gt;Jake Roach has been bending pins and busting solder joints since the mid-2000s. From trying to run scratched CDs of &lt;em&gt;Delta Force &lt;/em&gt;and &lt;em&gt;Unreal Tournament &lt;/em&gt;to spitting out virtual machines on a Threadripper, Jake has been on the hunt for the latest hardware and highest performance for decades. That eventually spun up a career, with Jake serving as Lead Reporter at Digital Trends, as well as contributing to outlets like XDA, PC Invasion, Business Insider, and WIRED. At Tom’s Hardware, Jake is focused on consumer and workstation CPUs. Outside working hours, you’ll find him knee-deep in the latest roguelite taking over Steam, spending way too much money on &lt;em&gt;Magic: The Gathering, &lt;/em&gt;or forcing his lazy corgi onto walks.&lt;/p&gt; ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                        <dc:contributor><![CDATA[ Paul Alcorn ]]></dc:contributor>
                                                                                                                                                                                    <media:content type="image/jpeg" url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7FRLCpVusR9om4FiGDuPyG-1280-80.jpg">
                                                            <media:credit><![CDATA[Tom&#039;s Hardware]]></media:credit>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    <media:description><![CDATA[CPUs laying out.]]></media:description>                                                            <media:text><![CDATA[CPUs laying out.]]></media:text>
                                <media:title type="plain"><![CDATA[CPUs laying out.]]></media:title>
                                                    </media:content>
                                                    <media:thumbnail url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7FRLCpVusR9om4FiGDuPyG-1280-80.jpg" />
                                                                                                                                                                    <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <div  class="fancy-box"><div class="fancy_box-title">More CPU content:</div><div class="fancy_box_body"><p class="fancy-box__body-text"><ul><li><a data-analytics-id="inline-link" href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html" target="_blank">The Best CPU for Gaming</a></li><li><a data-analytics-id="inline-link" href="https://www.tomshardware.com/features/amd-vs-intel-cpus" target="_blank">Intel vs AMD</a></li><li><a data-analytics-id="inline-link" href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-buying-guide,5643.html" target="_blank">CPU Buying Guide</a></li><li><a data-analytics-id="inline-link" href="https://www.tomshardware.com/features/best-cpu-deals" target="_blank">Best CPU Deals</a></li><li><a data-analytics-id="inline-link" href="https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intel-core-ultra-9-285k-vs-amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-faceoff-battle-of-the-gaming-flagships" target="_blank">AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Faceoff</a></li><li><a data-analytics-id="inline-link" href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gpus,4380.html" target="_blank">The Best GPU for Gaming</a></li><li><a data-analytics-id="inline-link" href="https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus" target="_blank">All CPU Content</a></li></ul></p></div></div><p>Our CPU benchmark hierarchy provides a broad view of relative performance for the latest Intel and AMD processors. Over the last 30 years, Tom’s Hardware has been benchmarking CPUs, and we use the rankings here as the basis of our <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><u>best CPUs for gaming</u></a> and <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cheap-cpus,5668.html"><u>best budget CPU</u></a> rankings. We run over 200 individual tests for each CPU we look at, and that comprehensive performance is condensed here for a high-level view of how CPUs compare across gaming, single-threaded, and multithreaded performance. </p><p>Each of our CPU benchmarks helps expose different aspects of performance, from heavily-threaded code compilation and data science workloads to lightly-threaded web apps and audio encoding. We’re currently in the process of the biggest refresh to our CPU benchmarks hierarchy ever, spanning over a decade of processor releases. The results here provide the first half of that testing, focusing on DDR5 platforms that span the <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/features/amd-vs-intel-cpus"><u>AMD vs Intel</u></a> product lineups. As we fill out our legacy benchmarks, you’ll see more CPUs added to our rankings. If you want to check the performance of older CPUs now, you can use the second page of this article to see our legacy benchmarks. </p><p>In games, <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-ryzen-7-9850x3d-review"><u>AMD’s Ryzen 7 9850X3D</u></a> is the fastest CPU on the market, though other Zen 5 X3D offerings like the <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-ryzen-9-9950x3d-review"><u>Ryzen 9 9950X3D</u></a> and <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-review-devastating-gaming-performance"><u>Ryzen 7 9800X3D </u></a>aren’t far behind. X3D chips dominate the charts for gaming at 1080p, with the other exception being the relatively unpopular (and expensive) Ryzen 9 7900X3D. Otherwise, Intel’s last-gen Core i9-14900K is the fastest offering from Team Blue, with the new Core Ultra 7 270K Plus coming in slightly behind <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intels-binary-optimization-tool-tested-and-explained-how-the-ibot-translation-delivers-up-to-18-percent-faster-gaming-performance-8-percent-on-average"><u>with Intel’s new iBOT feature</u></a>. </p><p>Intel pulls out strong positions in applications; however, with the <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus-review/"><u>Core Ultra 7 270K Plus </u></a>topping the charts in single-threaded performance and coming in third in multi-threaded rankings. It’s only beaten by the Ryzen 9 9950X and its X3D variant, and only by a hair. Further, both of those CPUs cost about twice as much. AMD's recent <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-ryzen-9-9950x3d2-review">Ryzen 9 9950X3D2</a> claims the top slot in overall performance, but at $900, it's too expensive for most buyers. </p><p>In each section below, we’ll show you the rankings for each CPU, as well as reveal what tests went into creating the rankings. We’ll also give you some pointers for benchmarking your own CPU to see how much performance an upgrade or overclock netted you, along with some common, easy-to-run benchmarks you can perform yourself. </p><h3 class="article-body__section" id="section-cpu-benchmarks-rankings-2026"><span>CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026</span></h3><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DDw3RLrourqMvUZa2Ugp9f.png" alt="CPU Benchmark Rankings" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jBp8pv3MTsgV9U2yXWjp9f.png" alt="CPU Benchmark Rankings" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/inLKtbMy7MiHA6ZRPj8nAf.png" alt="CPU Benchmark Rankings" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SmDdzbKGWsiS2fFtifxNCf.png" alt="CPU Benchmark Rankings" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure></figure><p>In the album above, you can see our master charts for gaming, single-threaded, and multi-threaded performance for CPUs. For games, all of our testing was done with an Nvidia RTX 5090 FE, and for applications, our testing was done with an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti FE. For applications, no compute is actively running on the GPU; it’s a glorified display output that shares a driver with our gaming GPU. You can find a full breakdown of the test benches we used at the end of this article. </p><h3 class="article-body__section" id="section-gaming-cpu-benchmarks-rankings-2026"><span>Gaming CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026</span></h3><div ><table><caption> Gaming CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026</caption><tbody><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>CPU / (MSRP)</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>Street Price</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>1080p Gaming Score</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>Architecture</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>Cores/Threads (P+E)</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>Base/Boost Clock (GHz)</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>TDP / Maximum Power</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 9850X3D ($500)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-RyzenTM-9850X3D-Desktop-Processor/dp/B0G8JMLXNQ/"><u>$499</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>100%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5.6</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 9800X3D ($480)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-9800X3D-16-Thread-Desktop-Processor/dp/B0DKFMSMYK/"><u>$464</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>97%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5.2 </p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 9950X3D ($700)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-9950X3D-16-Core-Processor/dp/B0DVZSG8D5/"><u>$676</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>95.7%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>4.3 / 5.7</p></td><td  ><p>170W / 230W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 9900X3D ($600)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-9900X3D-12-Core-Processor/dp/B0DWGWN8GY/"><u>$530</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>86.9%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>4.4 / 5.5</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 230W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 7800X3D ($450)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-7800X3D-16-Thread-Processor/dp/B0BTZB7F88/"><u>$399</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>85.6%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / 5</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 7950X3D ($700)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-7950X3D-Hexadeca-core-Processor/dp/B0BTRH9MNS/"><u>$650</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>83.9%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / 5.7</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 5 7600X3D ($300)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-7600X3D-Raphael-4-1GHz-Processor/dp/B0F9XH8DBP/"><u>$246</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>80.6%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>4.1 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>65W / 88W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i9-14900K ($550)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/i9-14900K-Desktop-Processor-Integrated-Graphics/dp/B0CGJDKLB8/"><u>$469</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>78.2%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake Refresh</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 32 (8+16)</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 253W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 7 270K Plus ($300)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus-core-ultra-7-series-2-arrow-lake-refresh-lga-1851-desktop-cpu-processor/p/N82E16819118628"><u>$350</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>77.5%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake Refresh</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 24 (8+16)</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 5.5</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 250W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 7900X3D ($600)</p></td><td  ><p>Out of Stock</p></td><td  ><p>77.1%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>4.4 / 5.6</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 9950X ($650)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-RyzenTM-9950X-32-Thread-Processor/dp/B0D6NNRBGP/"><u>$520</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>76.9%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5/7</p></td><td  ><p>170W / 230W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i9-13900K ($590)</p></td><td  ><p>Out of Stock</p></td><td  ><p>76.8%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 32 (8+16)</p></td><td  ><p>3 / 5.8</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 253W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i7-14700K ($410)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/i7-14700K-Desktop-Processor-Integrated-Graphics/dp/B0CGJ41C9W/"><u>$340</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>76.4%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake Refresh</p></td><td  ><p>20 / 28 (8+12)</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 5.6</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 253W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i7-13700K ($410)</p></td><td  ><p>Out of Stock</p></td><td  ><p>75.8%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 24 (8+8)</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 5.4</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 253W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 9900X ($500)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-RyzenTM-9900X-24-Thread-Processor/dp/B0D6NN87T8/"><u>$439</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>73.9%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>4.4 / 5.6</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 5 250K Plus ($200)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-ultra-5-250k-plus-core-ultra-5-series-2-arrow-lake-refresh-lga-1851-desktop-cpu-processor/p/N82E16819118629"><u>$220</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>73.3%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake Refresh</p></td><td  ><p>18 / 18 (6+12)</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 159W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i5-14600K ($320)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/i5-14600K-Desktop-Processor-Integrated-Graphics/dp/B0CGJ9STNF/"><u>$300</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>72.8%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake Refresh</p></td><td  ><p>14 / 20 (6+8)</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 181W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 5 9600X ($280)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-RyzenTM-9600X-12-Thread-Processor/dp/B0D6NN6TM7/"><u>$188</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>72.6%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 5.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W / 88W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 9 285K ($590)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Core-Ultra-Processor-285K/dp/B0DFKC99VL/"><u>$557</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>71.8%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 24 (8+16)</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 5.7</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 250W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 7950X ($700)</p></td><td  ><p>Out of Stock</p></td><td  ><p>71%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>4.5 / 5.7</p></td><td  ><p>170W / 230W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i5-13600K ($320)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-13600K-Desktop-Processor-P-cores/dp/B0BCDR9M33/"><u>$319</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>70.9%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake</p></td><td  ><p>14 / 20 (6+8)</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 5.1</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 181W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 7700X ($400)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-7700X-16-Thread-Unlocked-Processor/dp/B0BBHHT8LY/"><u>$249</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>70.6%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>4.5 / 5.4</p></td><td  ><p>105W / 142W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 7 265K ($400)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Core-Ultra-Processor-265K/dp/B0DFK2MH2D/"><u>$284</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>70.3%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake</p></td><td  ><p>20 / 20 (8+12)</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 5.5</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 250W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 7900X ($550)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-7900X-24-Thread-Unlocked-Processor/dp/B0BBJ59WJ4/"><u>$299</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>69.2%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5.6</p></td><td  ><p>170W / 230W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 5 7600X ($300)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-7600X-12-Thread-Unlocked-Processor/dp/B0BBJDS62N/"><u>$180</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>67.3%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>105W / 142W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 5 245K ($320)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Core-Ultra-Processor-245K/dp/B0DFK2P311/"><u>$202</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>67.1%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake</p></td><td  ><p>14 / 14 (6+8)</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / 5.2</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 159W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i7-12700K ($410)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-12700K-Desktop-Processor-Unlocked/dp/B09FXNVDBJ/"><u>$285</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>65.8%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 20 (8+4)</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 5</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 190W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 5 225 ($183)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel%C2%AE-CoreTM-Desktop-Processor-P-cores/dp/B0DT7DXXJT/"><u>$180</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>62.5%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 10 (6+4)</p></td><td  ><p>3.3 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>65W / 121W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i5-12600K ($290)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-12600K-Desktop-Processor-Unlocked/dp/B09FX4D72T/"><u>$185</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>60.8%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 16 (6+4)</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 150W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i5-14400 ($220)</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-14400-Desktop-Processor-P-cores/dp/B0CQ1M1YXM/"><u>$250</u></a></p></td><td  ><p>58%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 16 (6+4)</p></td><td  ><p>2.5 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>65W / 154W</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>You can see the relative score for AMD and Intel CPUs above, measured against the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, which is the fastest gaming CPU on the market, per our testing. So, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D offers 97.04% of the performance of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, while the Ryzen 9 7900X offers 69.28% of the performance. You can set any CPU as a baseline for comparison with Bench, which is available in <em>Tom’s Hardware Premium. </em></p><p>All of our gaming tests were run with the RTX 5090 FE at 1080p with a mixture of High and Ultra settings. We run each test multiple times — usually between three and five — and pick the median result. In other words, the results we use are real, recorded runs, not an average of several different runs. This is important as some games, such as <em>Far Cry 6, </em>show great CPU scaling but are otherwise inconsistent run-to-run. </p><p>In addition to consistent hardware (test benches at the end of this article), we use a consistent test image between platforms. That means the same GPU driver, the same Windows install, the game version, etc. We also tested with Virtualization-Based Security (VBS) turned off, Resizable BAR turned on, and automatic overclocking features disabled. That includes the Intel Extreme power profile and AMD’s PBO, both of which aren’t covered under standard warranty. </p><p>For this refresh, we tested 17 games and then calculated a geometric mean of the results. A simple average would provide skewed results with such a large test pool. A geomean provides a more realistic view of how each CPU compares to the others.</p><p>Here are the games that we used for testing: </p><ul><li><em>Counter-Strike 2</em></li><li><em>The Last of Us Part One</em></li><li><em>Cyberpunk 2077</em></li><li><em>Starfield</em></li><li><em>A Plague Tale: Requiem</em></li><li><em>Hogwarts Legacy</em></li><li><em>F1 24</em></li><li><em>Marvel’s Spider-Man 2</em></li><li><em>Baldur’s Gate 3</em></li><li><em>Monster Hunter: Wilds</em></li><li><em>Final Fantasy XIV</em></li><li><em>Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024</em></li><li><em>Doom: The Dark Ages</em></li><li><em>Oblivion Remastered</em></li><li><em>Far Cry 6</em></li><li><em>Hitman 3</em></li><li><em>Minecraft RTX</em></li></ul><p>We’re constantly evaluating new games to include in our test suite — see our recent stories on <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/testing-cpu-scaling-in-resident-evil-requiem-and-why-we-werent-able-to-finish-the-job"><u><em>Resident Evil Requiem </em></u><u>CPU scaling</u></a> and <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/testing-cpu-scaling-in-crimson-desert-x3d-wins-but-not-by-much-and-raptor-lake-shines"><u><em>Crimson Desert </em></u><u>CPU scaling</u></a> — but we maintain a list of tried-and-true benchmarks for our hierarchy rankings. We want to avoid including brand-new titles, which may see many updates, to keep our rankings as true to reality as possible. If you want more about the rationale behind our game choices, see our <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/behind-the-scenes-of-our-massive-cpu-retest-for-bench-testing-at-1080p-choosing-new-apps-and-gathering-data-for-a-decade-of-cpus"><u>behind the scenes look at our CPU hierarchy</u></a> testing. </p><h3 class="article-body__section" id="section-single-threaded-cpu-benchmarks-rankings-2026"><span>Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026</span></h3><div ><table><caption>2026 Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks</caption><tbody><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p><strong>Single-Threaded App Score</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>Architecture</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>Cores/Threads (P+E)</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>Base/Boost Clock (GHz)</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>TDP / Maximum Power</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 7 270K Plus</p></td><td  ><p>100%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake Refresh</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 24 (8+16)</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 5.5</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 250W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 9 285K</p></td><td  ><p>98.5%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 24 (8+16)</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 5.7</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 250W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 7 265K</p></td><td  ><p>96.8%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake</p></td><td  ><p>20 / 20 (8+12)</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 5.5</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 250W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i9-14900K</p></td><td  ><p>95.4%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake Refresh</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 32 (8+16)</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 253W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 5 250K Plus</p></td><td  ><p>94%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake Refresh</p></td><td  ><p>18 / 18 (6+12)</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 159W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 9950X</p></td><td  ><p>93.3%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5/7</p></td><td  ><p>170W / 230W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 9850X3D</p></td><td  ><p>93.2%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5.6</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 9950X3D</p></td><td  ><p>92.8%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>4.3 / 5.7</p></td><td  ><p>170W / 230W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 5 245K</p></td><td  ><p>92.5%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake</p></td><td  ><p>14 / 14 (6+8)</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / 5.2</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 159W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i9-13900K</p></td><td  ><p>92.4%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 32 (8+16)</p></td><td  ><p>3 / 5.8</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 253W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 9900X</p></td><td  ><p>92.2%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>4.4 / 5.6</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 9900X3D</p></td><td  ><p>90.8%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>4.4 / 5.5</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 230W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 9700X / 105W TDP</p></td><td  ><p>90.6% / 90.5%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5</p></td><td  ><p>8 /16</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 5.5</p></td><td  ><p>65W / 88W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i7-14700K</p></td><td  ><p>90.1%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake Refresh</p></td><td  ><p>20 / 28 (8+12)</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 5.6</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 253W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 5 9600X / 105W TDP</p></td><td  ><p>89% / 88.9%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 5.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W / 88W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 9800X3D</p></td><td  ><p>87.6%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5.2 </p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 5 225</p></td><td  ><p>87.3%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 10 (6+4)</p></td><td  ><p>3.3 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>65W / 121W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i7-13700K</p></td><td  ><p>86.7%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 24 (8+8)</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 5.4</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 253W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i5-14600K</p></td><td  ><p>85.8%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake Refresh</p></td><td  ><p>14 / 20 (6+8)</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 181W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 7950X3D</p></td><td  ><p>85.4%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / 5.7</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 7950X</p></td><td  ><p>85.2%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>4.5 / 5.7</p></td><td  ><p>170W / 230W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 7900X3D</p></td><td  ><p>84%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>4.4 / 5.6</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 7700X</p></td><td  ><p>84%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>4.5 / 5.4</p></td><td  ><p>105W / 142W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i5-13600K</p></td><td  ><p>82.4%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake</p></td><td  ><p>14 / 20 (6+8)</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 5.1</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 181W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i7-12700K</p></td><td  ><p>79.7%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 20 (8+4)</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 5</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 190W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i5-12600K</p></td><td  ><p>78.6%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 16 (6+4)</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 150W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 7800X3D</p></td><td  ><p>77.3%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / 5</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i5-14400</p></td><td  ><p>75.4%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 16 (6+4)</p></td><td  ><p>2.5 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>65W / 154W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 5 7600X3D</p></td><td  ><p>73.2%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>4.1 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>65W / 88W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 5 7600X</p></td><td  ><p>71.5%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>105W / 142W</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>We run hundreds of tests for each CPU, but only a small subset of those tests factor into our single-threaded rankings. We use the mp3 encoder LAME with a single thread (both standard and extended), Cinebench 2026 and 2024’s single-threaded test, the ray-traced renderer POV-ray, and WebXRT4, which runs a series of browser-based applications written in various languages. </p><p>The fastest chip in the pool here is the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, which scores 100%, with every other chip scored relative to it. The Core i9-14900K offers 95.4% of the single-threaded performance of the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, the Ryzen 5 9600X offers 89% of the performance, and so on. </p><p>Most real-world workloads aren’t strictly single-threaded, which is why we include it on a subset of the total tests we run. The goal is to see what relative performance looks like in lightly-threaded applications, as well as look into the overall architecture of different CPUs. Single-threaded performance exposes a lot about the architecture in a way that heavily-threaded applications tend to mask. </p><p>We’re, of course, looking at performance on a single core, favoring high clock speeds and IPC (instructions per cycle). However, single-threaded performance also says a lot about what’s going on elsewhere inside the CPU, from the speed of the IMC (integrated memory controller) to the fabric/ring speed. That’s why we see things like the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus outperforming the Core Ultra 9 285K, despite the latter sporting higher clock speeds. </p><h3 class="article-body__section" id="section-multi-threaded-cpu-benchmarks-rankings-2026"><span>Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026</span></h3><div ><table><caption>2026 Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks</caption><tbody><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p><strong>Single-Threaded App Score</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>Architecture</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>Cores/Threads (P+E)</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>Base/Boost Clock (GHz)</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>TDP / Maximum Power</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 9950X3D</p></td><td  ><p>100%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>4.3 / 5.7</p></td><td  ><p>170W / 230W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 9950X</p></td><td  ><p>96.8%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5/7</p></td><td  ><p>170W / 230W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 7 270K Plus</p></td><td  ><p>95.6%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake Refresh</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 24 (8+16)</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 5.5</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 250W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 9 285K</p></td><td  ><p>88.7%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 24 (8+16)</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 5.7</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 250W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 7950X</p></td><td  ><p>88%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>4.5 / 5.7</p></td><td  ><p>170W / 230W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 7950X3D</p></td><td  ><p>84.4%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / 5.7</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i9-14900K</p></td><td  ><p>83.9%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake Refresh</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 32 (8+16)</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 253W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i9-13900K</p></td><td  ><p>81%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 32 (8+16)</p></td><td  ><p>3 / 5.8</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 253W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 7 265K</p></td><td  ><p>78.9%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake</p></td><td  ><p>20 / 20 (8+12)</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 5.5</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 250W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 9900X3D</p></td><td  ><p>77%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>4.4 / 5.5</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 230W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 9900X</p></td><td  ><p>76.7%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>4.4 / 5.6</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i7-14700K</p></td><td  ><p>75.1%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake Refresh</p></td><td  ><p>20 / 28 (8+12)</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 5.6</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 253W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 5 250K Plus</p></td><td  ><p>70.9%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake Refresh</p></td><td  ><p>18 / 18 (6+12)</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 159W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i7-13700K</p></td><td  ><p>67.1%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 24 (8+8)</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 5.4</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 253W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 9 7900X3D</p></td><td  ><p>63.9%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>4.4 / 5.6</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 9850X3D</p></td><td  ><p>57%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5.6</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 9800X3D</p></td><td  ><p>56.9%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5.2 </p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 5 245K</p></td><td  ><p>55.8%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake</p></td><td  ><p>14 / 14 (6+8)</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / 5.2</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 159W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i5-14600K</p></td><td  ><p>53.9%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake Refresh</p></td><td  ><p>14 / 20 (6+8)</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 181W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i7-12700K</p></td><td  ><p>51.9%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 20 (8+4)</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 5</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 190W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i5-13600K</p></td><td  ><p>50.3%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake</p></td><td  ><p>14 / 20 (6+8)</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 5.1</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 181W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 9700X / 105W TDP</p></td><td  ><p>47.2% / 53.2%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5</p></td><td  ><p>8 /16</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 5.5</p></td><td  ><p>65W / 88W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 7700X</p></td><td  ><p>46.8%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>4.5 / 5.4</p></td><td  ><p>105W / 142W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 7800X3D</p></td><td  ><p>44.5%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / 5</p></td><td  ><p>120W / 162W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 5 9600X / 105W TDP</p></td><td  ><p>39.7% / 41.7%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 5</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 5.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W / 88W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i5-12600K</p></td><td  ><p>39.5%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 16 (6+4)</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 150W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core Ultra 5 225</p></td><td  ><p>38.5%</p></td><td  ><p>Arrow Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 10 (6+4)</p></td><td  ><p>3.3 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>65W / 121W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 5 7600X3D</p></td><td  ><p>33.1%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4 X3D</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>4.1 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>65W / 88W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i5-14400</p></td><td  ><p>32.7%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 16 (6+4)</p></td><td  ><p>2.5 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>65W / 154W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 5 7600X</p></td><td  ><p>31.3%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>105W / 142W</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>Similar to single-threaded rankings, we use a subset of the total tests we run for CPU reviews in ranking multithreaded performance. Cinebench and POV-ray show up here again, this time using as many threads as possible, alongside VRay, four Blender tests, and Handbrake using various codecs. Although most applications will leverage multiple threads these days, we’re specifically looking at applications that will take as many threads as possible to maximize compute. </p><p>Compared to single-threaded workloads, heavily-threaded tasks are less concerned with clock speed and put a greater emphasis on interconnects and core-to-core latency. Core count is obviously important, as well, though it’s been somewhat undermined by Intel’s hybrid architectures over the last several generations. </p><p>Given that we’re spanning multiple nodes, core count alone isn’t indicative of higher multithreaded performance. Yes, higher core counts within the same generation will usually provide higher multithreaded performance, but a slew of other factors can increase performance, as well, from all-core and uncore frequencies to higher transistor density. Because of the wide swath of factors, you can see much more aggressive scaling with our multithreaded rankings compared to single-threaded rankings.</p><h3 class="article-body__section" id="section-integrated-gpu-gaming-cpu-benchmarks-rankings-2026"><span>Integrated GPU Gaming CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026</span></h3><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/foCxx4vhCPeaBJafxHACia.png" alt="CPU integrated GPU Hierarchy" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/fsJpoB2CKJPPggf9PGCnoP.png" alt="CPU Benchmark Hierarchy" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6tMHFEAseZKBWuTNERSPtP.png" alt="CPU Benchmark Hierarchy" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ohj5E7FwgV5SZZkYhqqida.png" alt="CPU integrated GPU Hierarchy" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/EwPnsnPmSVV7tLHaXQE4Ra.png" alt="CPU integrated GPU Hierarchy" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/b9LXLSTXohcBV4Sb8ja45Q.png" alt="CPU Benchmark Hierarchy" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2iwg9upZXomq58VMFW3KXa.png" alt="CPU integrated GPU Hierarchy" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/usbGTexQEpAtyjFyhcpzxP.png" alt="CPU Benchmark Hierarchy" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure></figure><div ><table><caption>iGPU Performance relative to Ryzen 7 5700G</caption><tbody><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p> </p></td><td  ><p>1280x720</p></td><td  ><p>1920x1080</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Ryzen 7 5700G B550-E </strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>100%</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>100%</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Ryzen 5 5600G</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>96.3%</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>96%</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 4750G</p></td><td  ><p>92.9%</p></td><td  ><p>94.1%</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 3 5300G</p></td><td  ><p>85.8%</p></td><td  ><p>87.2%</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 5 3400G</p></td><td  ><p>83.5%</p></td><td  ><p>84.1%</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 3 3200G</p></td><td  ><p>77.1%</p></td><td  ><p>78.1%</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel UHD Graphics 750 32 EU (11600K, 11700K)</p></td><td  ><p>58.3%</p></td><td  ><p>~48.9%</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel UHD Graphics 730 24 EU (i5-11400)</p></td><td  ><p>51.7%</p></td><td  ><p>42.9%</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel UHD Graphics 630 24 EU (10600K)</p></td><td  ><p>36.0%</p></td><td  ><p>34.4%</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>Here's our list of gaming performance with integrated graphics on several of the leading APUs available. We've split this into two different price ranges, so be sure to flip through all of the performance charts. For a bit of commentary and analysis of these results, head to our <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amds-ryzen-cezanne-apus-coming-to-retail-for-desktop-pcs">Ryzen 7 5700G</a>, <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-5600g-review">Ryzen 5 5600G</a>, and <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-3-5300g-review">Ryzen 3 5300G</a> reviews. The most powerful chip gets a 100, and all others are scored relative to it.</p><h3 class="article-body__section" id="section-how-to-benchmark-your-cpu"><span>How to Benchmark your CPU</span></h3><p>It’s important to know how to benchmark your CPU. It gives you a way to compare performance <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/how-to-overclock-a-cpu"><u>after an overclock</u></a> or a CPU upgrade, and it allows you to check if you’re getting the full performance out of your system. Maybe a poor CPU cooler mount is limiting your performance, or maybe your BIOS settings aren’t optimal. Using benchmarks to compare your results lets you see where your rig stacks up, not only for leaderboard purposes, but also basic troubleshooting. </p><p>The key to benchmarking your CPU is consistency. The only variable that should change is your CPU, be it a new CPU or an overclock/undervolt. Before starting, make sure to close any applications running in the background. That’s not only to net peak performance, but also to avoid any inconsistencies between runs. Background apps can gobble up threads inconsistently, making it difficult to compare your results from run to run. </p><p>If you want more consistency, you can optionally run the following command before benchmarking in an elevated command prompt: </p><p><em>Rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks</em></p><p>This will force Windows to perform the background tasks it normally does when your PC is idle. It’s not essential, but it’s a good sanity check to make sure there’s nothing interfering with your results. </p><p>For applications, you want to test the apps you actually use. If you use the Adobe suite, for example, you can download and use PugetBench for free and compare your results with Puget’s database. A lot of apps don’t have these easy-to-use benchmarking tools and databases, so you need to find a proxy. For instance, Procyon Office measures Microsoft Office performance, but a license costs nearly $1,600 per year. PCMark 10 Basic, which is free, measures open-source office applications. Below, we have some of our favorite free benchmarks for comparing CPU performance. </p><p>In games, you can take two approaches: manual or automated. Some modern games include built-in benchmarking tools, such as <em>Cyberpunk 2077 </em>and <em>Doom: The Dark Ages, </em>and although they aren’t perfect, they’re easy to run and highly repeatable. The best way to measure CPU gaming performance, however, is manual benchmarking. </p><p>That involves finding a scene where you can go over a specific path repeatedly. That could be starting from a specific checkpoint that you can reload or resorting to a manual save where you start from the exact same position. Regardless, it’s important to avoid randomness in your testing. Keep the path consistent — for example, a walking path through a town — and try not to swing the camera around. </p><p>For measuring performance in games, you’ll need a performance monitoring tool. There are simple apps like <a href="https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/technologies/frameview/"><u>Nvidia’s FrameView</u></a>, which logs a ton of information but is a little cumbersome to deal with; it exports data to spreadsheets. <a href="https://www.capframex.com/"><u>CapFrameX</u></a> is a good alternative, which uses the same backend as FrameView (Intel’s PresentMon), but comes with a user-friendly GUI and extra features like the ability to generate charts right in the app. </p><p>After you run your benchmarks, you need a comparison point. Databases like Puget are your best resources on that front. If you’re comparing results to reviews, forum threads, or other systems, keep in mind the variables that can influence performance. It’s not a good idea to compare performance with uncontrolled variables unless you have a wide swath of comparison points. </p><h3 class="article-body__section" id="section-best-cpu-benchmarks-you-can-run"><span>Best CPU Benchmarks You Can Run</span></h3><ul><li><a href="https://www.maxon.net/en/downloads/cinebench-downloads"><u>Cinebench 2026</u></a> – Cinebench is the quintessential CPU benchmark, used almost universally in reviews, and it’s completely free to download and use.</li><li><a href="https://www.geekbench.com/"><u>Geekbench 6</u></a> – Geekbench has a number of issues, but it offers a massive database for comparing your system against other similar systems. And it’s free to download and run.</li><li><a href="https://opendata.blender.org/"><u>Blender</u></a> – Blender has a benchmarking utility with a GUI that’s free to download, as well as a large database of results.</li><li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/524390/PCMark_10/"><u>PCMark 10 Basic</u></a> – The main PCMark 10 benchmark is free to use with the Basic edition, allowing you to test productivity performance with open-source office apps, as well as compare your scores with UL’s database.</li><li><a href="https://handbrake.fr/"><u>Handbrake</u></a> – Handbrake is a powerful, free, and open-source video transcoding tool, and it’s easy to run benchmarks with. Use any video file, make sure your settings are the same, and start a stopwatch to measure the time encoding takes. Lower is better.</li><li><a href="https://www.principledtechnologies.com/benchmarkxprt/webxprt/"><u>WebXPRT 5</u></a> – WebXPRT runs a variety of web applications directly in your browser, for free, and with a database to compare results to. It takes a while to run, however.</li><li><a href="https://browserbench.org/JetStream2.0/"><u>JetStream 2</u></a> – JetStream is a faster browser-based benchmark, though it doesn’t have a database of results.</li><li><a href="https://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html"><u>CPU-Z</u></a> – CPU-Z isn’t a reliable benchmark for real-world performance, but it includes single- and multithreaded tests, it’s easy to run, and you’ll find results online almost as commonly as Cinebench results.</li><li><a href="https://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/"><u>Y-cruncher</u></a> – This test calculates Pi with digit extraction, and it’s accelerated with SIMD instructions like AVX. You can only run it from a command line, but it’s relatively straightforward.</li><li><a href="https://www.pugetsystems.com/pugetbench/creators/"><u>PugetBench</u></a> – Puget includes benchmarks for the biggest apps in the Adobe suite, as well as DaVinci Resolve. The benchmark itself is free, and Puget maintains a large database. You’ll need a license for the applications it tests, however.</li></ul><h3 class="article-body__section" id="section-2026-cpu-benchmarks-test-system-and-configuration"><span>2026 CPU Benchmarks Test System and Configuration</span></h3><div ><table><caption>2026 CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy Test Setup</caption><tbody><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel LGA 1851 (Arrow Lake and Refresh)</strong></p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Motherboard</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/asrock-z890-taichi-atx-motherboard-intel-z890-lga-1851/p/N82E16813162169"><u>ASRock Z890 Taichi</u></a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>RAM</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-trident-z5-rgb-series-32gb-ddr5-7200-cas-latency-cl34-desktop-memory-black/p/N82E16820374436"><u>2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo RGB DDR5-7200</u></a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel LGA 1700 (Raptor Lake, Alder Lake)</strong></p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Motherboard</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/msi-mpg-z790-carbon-wifi-atx-motherboard-intel-z790-lga-1700/p/N82E16813144563"><u>MSI MPG Z790 Carbon Wi-Fi</u></a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>RAM </p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-trident-z5-rgb-series-32gb-ddr5-7200-cas-latency-cl34-desktop-memory-black/p/N82E16820374436"><u>2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo RGB DDR5-7200</u></a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>AMD AM5 (Zen 5, Zen 4)</strong></p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Motherboard</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/msi-mpg-x870e-carbon-wifi-atx-motherboard-amd-x870e-am5/p/N82E16813144666"><u>MSI MPG X870E Carbon Wi-Fi</u></a>, <a href="https://www.newegg.com/gigabyte-x870e-aorus-elite-x3d-ice-atx-motherboard-amd-x870e-am5/p/N82E16813145595"><u>Gigabyte Aorus X870E Elite X3D ICE</u></a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>RAM</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/G-Skill-Trident-288-Pin-CL30-38-38-96-F5-6000J3038F16GX2-TZ5NR/dp/B0BF8FVLSL/"><u>2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo RGB DDR5-6000</u></a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>All Systems</strong></p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Gaming CPU</p></td><td  ><p>Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 Founder’s Edition</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Application GPU</p></td><td  ><p>Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founder’s Edition</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Cooler</p></td><td  ><p>Corsair iCue Link H150i RGB</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Storage</p></td><td  ><p>2TB Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>PSU</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/msi-atx12v-1000-w-up-to-90-power-supplies-black-mpg-a1000gs-pcie5/p/N82E16817701030"><u>MSI MPG A1000GS</u></a>, <a href="https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16817233053"><u>Gigabyte UD1000GM PG5 V2</u></a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Other</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/ARCTIC-MX-4-2019-Performance-Durability/dp/B07LDK4F5R/"><u>Arctic MX-4 TIM</u></a>, Windows 11 Pro, Alamengda open test bench</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div><ul><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d-vs-intel-core-i9-13900k-vs-intel-core-7-13700K">AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D vs Intel Core i9-13900K vs Core i7-13700K: Big Gaming Punch, Smaller Price Tag</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d-vs-intel-core-i9-13900k-faceoff">AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D vs Intel Core i9-13900K Faceoff: Battle of the Gaming Flagships</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i5-13600k-vs-amd-ryzen-7-7700x-and-ryzen-5-7600x-face-off">Intel Core i5-13600K vs AMD Ryzen 7 7700X and Ryzen 5 7600X Face Off</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-vs-intel-core-i9-13900k">AMD Ryzen 9 7950X vs Intel Core i9-13900K Face Off</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7-5800x3d-vs-core-i7-12700k-and-core-i9-12900k-face-off-the-rise-of-3d-v-cache">Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs Core i7-12700K and Core i9-12900K Face-Off: The Rise of 3D V-Cache</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i9-12900k-vs-ryzen-9-5900x-5950x">Intel Core i9-12900K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and 5950X: Alder Lake and Ryzen 5000 Face Off</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i5-12600k-vs-amd-ryzen-5-5600x-ryzen-7-5800x-cpu-face-off">Intel Core i5-12600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and 5800X Face Off: Ryzen Has Fallen</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i7-12700k-vs-amd-ryzen-9-5900x-and-5800x-face-off-intel-rising">Intel Core i7-12700K vs AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and 5800X Face Off: Intel Rising</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i5-12400-vs-amd-ryzen-5-5600x-ryzen-5-5600g-cpu-face-off">Intel Core i5-12400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Face-Off: The Gaming Value Showdown</a></li></ul><ul><li><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs for Gaming</strong></a></li><li><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/features/amd-vs-intel-cpus"><strong>AMD vs Intel</strong></a></li><li><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-13th-gen-raptor-lake-release-date-specifications-pricing-benchmarks-all-we-know-specs"><strong>13th-Gen Raptor Lake</strong></a><strong> All We Know</strong></li><li><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-zen-4-ryzen-7000-release-date-specifications-pricing-benchmarks-all-we-know-specs"><strong>Zen 4 Ryzen 7000</strong></a><strong> All We Know</strong></li><li><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/how-to-overclock-a-cpu"><strong>How to Overclock a CPU</strong></a></li><li><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/how-to-check-cpu-temp-temperature"><strong>How to check CPU Temperature</strong></a></li><li><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></li></ul><iframe src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/dBMx1ASv.html" id="dBMx1ASv" title="How to Choose a CPU" width="960" height="540" frameborder="0" scrolling="auto" allowfullscreen></iframe><h2 id="2020-2022-cpu-benchmarks-hierarchy">2020 - 2022 CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy</h2><p>You can find our rankings of the most current-gen systems on the previous page. The results below are from our legacy benchmarks, using a different GPU and test systems than our current CPU benchmark rankings. However, this provides great historical context and also includes other previous-gen CPUs not included in our new test suite. You'll also find our even older legacy rankings further below. These date back over the last decade. </p><h3 class="article-body__section" id="section-legacy-2020-2022-cpu-benchmarks-rankings-windows-10-and-11"><span>Legacy: 2020 - 2022 CPU Benchmarks Rankings - Windows 10 and 11</span></h3><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/W3GU8Pq99LYcsUEy2S4VDU.png" alt="AMD vs Intel" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8zpwaQ5zkgAcSqUiGV6WHU.png" alt="AMD vs Intel" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CSLXSfQjq2bTunXW2UkAKe.png" alt="ADM vs Intel" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6MzkyuxZSyNt83WsyTv3Pe.png" alt="ADM vs Intel" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TtBSDqmGUKepDNWDbbXuAX.png" alt="Ryzen 9 7900X" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PbB2zxcydzbPBQeDyBPd7X.png" alt="Ryzen 9 7900X" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4Uo9Th9CnSTFd5yNUiN4JX.png" alt="Ryzen 9 7900X" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WGeGcXEDvTRFZD5YPatCFX.png" alt="Ryzen 9 7900X" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3xYB9Tgp4kjiSdweatEzDf.png" alt="CPU Benchmark" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nWEViwJ93FJJRpazc8eFu9.png" alt="Ryzen 7 5800X3D" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/hXCZtqtAcLQUqXUDFCADm9.png" alt="Ryzen 7 5800X3D" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LBommkJKQ2nZNaM9v6tMg9.png" alt="Ryzen 7 5800X3D" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure></figure><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/F8LbVqh2HanAaMDUKLVFZi.png" alt="CPU Hierarchy" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SAXoWK6BiNQ6mAMLbEALVi.png" alt="CPU Hierarchy" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XUq9Uh9x2UTT97fTGZMbci.png" alt="CPU Hierarchy" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/P8r3x46ksaXGfFN5Uxvmgi.png" alt="CPU Hierarchy" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/bXyPwEFZ44q8ofZTc4drMi.png" alt="CPU Hierarchy" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tmxXxdMiJ5cbd6qepgJyRi.png" alt="CPU Hierarchy" /><figcaption><small role="credit">Tom's Hardware</small></figcaption></figure></figure><h3 class="article-body__section" id="section-legacy-2020-2022-gaming-cpu-benchmarks-ranking"><span>Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Gaming CPU Benchmarks Ranking</span></h3><div ><table><caption>Legacy: Gaming CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2020 - 2022 - Windows 11</caption><thead><tr><th class="firstcol " ><p> </p></th><th  ><p>1080p Gaming Score</p></th><th  ><p>1440p Gaming Score</p></th><th  ><p>Architecture</p></th><th  ><p>Cores/Threads (P+E)</p></th><th  ><p>Base/Boost GHz</p></th><th  ><p>TDP - MTP</p></th><th  ><p>Buy</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$589 - Core i9-13900K</p></td><td  ><p>100.00%</p></td><td  ><p>100.00%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 32 (8+16)</p></td><td  ><p>3.0 / 5.8</p></td><td  ><p>125 / 253W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$409 - Core i7-13700K</p></td><td  ><p>96.09%</p></td><td  ><p>97.09%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 24 (8+8)</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 5.4</p></td><td  ><p>125 / 253W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$365 - Ryzen 7 5800X3D</p></td><td  ><p>94.42%</p></td><td  ><p>97.45%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$319 - Core i5-13600K</p></td><td  ><p>90.03%</p></td><td  ><p>92.94%</p></td><td  ><p>Raptor Lake</p></td><td  ><p>14 / 20 (6+8)</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 5.1</p></td><td  ><p>125 / 181W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$474 - Ryzen 9 7900X</p></td><td  ><p>87.40%</p></td><td  ><p>90.52%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5.6</p></td><td  ><p>170 / 230W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$569 - Ryzen 9 7950X</p></td><td  ><p>87.25%</p></td><td  ><p>90.27%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>4.5 / 5.7</p></td><td  ><p>170 / 230W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$349 - Ryzen 7 7700X</p></td><td  ><p>87.13%</p></td><td  ><p>91.55%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>8 /16</p></td><td  ><p>4.5 / 5.4</p></td><td  ><p>105 / 142W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$329 - Ryzen 7 7700</p></td><td  ><p>86.19%</p></td><td  ><p>88.88%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>65 / 88W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$429 - Ryzen 9 7900</p></td><td  ><p>84.75%</p></td><td  ><p>88.46%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5.6</p></td><td  ><p>170 / 230W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$249 - Ryzen 5 7600X</p></td><td  ><p>83.62%</p></td><td  ><p>88.44%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>4.7 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>105 / 142W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$229 - Ryzen 5 7600</p></td><td  ><p>79.74%</p></td><td  ><p>85.97%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 4</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 5.1</p></td><td  ><p>65 / 88W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$550 - Ryzen 9 5950X</p></td><td  ><p>72.04%</p></td><td  ><p>77.51%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$350 - Ryzen 9 5900X</p></td><td  ><p>71.69%</p></td><td  ><p>78.95%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.8</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$235 - Ryzen 7 5800X</p></td><td  ><p>70.90%</p></td><td  ><p>78.19%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$210 - Ryzen 7 5700X</p></td><td  ><p>69.50%</p></td><td  ><p>76.65%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$165 - Ryzen 5 5600X</p></td><td  ><p>67.52%</p></td><td  ><p>74.68%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>$189 - Core i5-12400</p></td><td  ><p>66.62%</p></td><td  ><p>73.53%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12 (6+0)</p></td><td  ><p>2.5 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>65 / 117W</p></td><td  ></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div ><table><caption>Legacy: Gaming CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2020 - 2022 - Windows 10</caption><thead><tr><th class="firstcol " ><p> </p></th><th  ><p><strong>1080p Gaming Score</strong></p></th><th  ><p><strong>1440p Gaming Score</strong></p></th><th  ><p><strong>CPU</strong></p></th><th  ><p><strong>Cores/Threads</strong></p></th><th  ><p><strong>Base/Boost GHz</strong></p></th><th  ><p><strong>TDP</strong></p></th><th  ><p><strong>Buy</strong></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-12900K DDR4 / DDR5</p></td><td  ><p>100% / 93.51%</p></td><td  ><p>100% / 95.86%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 24 (8P+8E) </p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / 5.2 </p></td><td  ><p>125 / 241W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i9-12900k-core-i9-12th-gen/p/N82E16819118339?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i9-12900K </a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-11900K</p></td><td  ><p>92.48%</p></td><td  ><p>97.26%</p></td><td  ><p>Rocket Lake</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i9-11900k-core-i9-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118231?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i9-11900K</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-12700K DDR4 / DDR5</p></td><td  ><p>97.71% / 91.23%</p></td><td  ><p>99.8% / 97.30%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 20 (8P+4E)</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>125 / 190W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i7-12700k-core-i7-12th-gen/p/N82E16819118343?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i7-12700K </a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 5900X</p></td><td  ><p>90.98%</p></td><td  ><p>93.18%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.8</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-5900X-24-Thread-Processor/dp/B08164VTWH?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Ryzen 9 5900X</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-12600K DDR4 / DDR5</p></td><td  ><p>90.89% / 84.32%</p></td><td  ><p>96.94% / 92.33%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 16 (6P+4E)</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>125 / 150W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-12600k-core-i5-12th-gen/p/N82E16819118347?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i5-12600K </a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 5950X</p></td><td  ><p>90.22%</p></td><td  ><p>95.32%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-9-5950x/p/N82E16819113663?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Ryzen 9 5950X</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper Pro 5975WX</p></td><td  ><p>88.71%</p></td><td  ><p>89.71%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>32 / 64</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-ThreadripperTM-PRO-5975WX-64-Thread/dp/B0B5VH1WPC">Threadripper Pro 5975WX</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 5600X</p></td><td  ><p>88.51%</p></td><td  ><p>91.79%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.bestbuy.com/site/amd-ryzen-5-5600x-4th-gen-6-core-12-threads-unlocked-desktop-processor-with-wraith-stealth-cooler/6438943.p?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Ryzen 5 5600X</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 5800X</p></td><td  ><p>86.85%</p></td><td  ><p>91.72%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.bestbuy.com/site/amd-ryzen-7-5800x-4th-gen-8-core-16-threads-unlocked-desktop-processor-without-cooler/6439000.p?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Ryzen 7 5800X</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-11700K</p></td><td  ><p>86.3%</p></td><td  ><p>92.0%</p></td><td  ><p>Rocket Lake</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 5.0</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i7-11700k-core-i7-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118233?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i7-11700K</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper Pro 5995WX</p></td><td  ><p>86.12%</p></td><td  ><p>84.79%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>64 / 128</p></td><td  ><p>2.7 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-ThreadripperTM-5995WX-128-Thread-Processor/dp/B0B5VLPVL5">Threadripper Pro 5995WX</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-10900K</p></td><td  ><p>85.01%</p></td><td  ><p>91.5%</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 20</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.bestbuy.com/site/intel-core-i9-10900k-10th-generation-10-core-20-thread-3-7-ghz-5-3-ghz-turbo-socket-lga1200-unlocked-desktop-processor/6411492.p?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i9-9900K</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-10850K</p></td><td  ><p>84.6%</p></td><td  ><p>91.07%</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 20</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 5.2</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i9-10850k-core-i9-10th-gen/p/N82E16819118175?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i9-10850K</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-11600K</p></td><td  ><p>84.06%</p></td><td  ><p>90.43%</p></td><td  ><p>Rocket Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-11600k-core-i5-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118235?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i5-11600K</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-11400</p></td><td  ><p>80.98%</p></td><td  ><p>87.77%</p></td><td  ><p>Rocket Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>2.6 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-11400-Desktop-Processor-LGA1200/dp/B08X6JPK4K?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i5-11400</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-10700K</p></td><td  ><p>80.66%</p></td><td  ><p>87.88%</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 5.1</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i7-10700k-core-i7-10th-gen/p/N82E16819118123?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i7-10700K</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-10980XE</p></td><td  ><p>78.04%</p></td><td  ><p>84.04%</p></td><td  ><p>Cascade Lake-X</p></td><td  ><p>18 / 36</p></td><td  ><p>3.0 / 4.8</p></td><td  ><p>165W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1507537-REG/intel_bx8069510980xe_core_i9_10980xe_3_0_ghz.html?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i9-10980XE</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel W-3175X</p></td><td  ><p>76.93%</p></td><td  ><p>82.58%</p></td><td  ><p>Skylake</p></td><td  ><p>28 / 56</p></td><td  ><p>3.1 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>225W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16819118010">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 5700G*</p></td><td  ><p>76.61%</p></td><td  ><p>83.1%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p>N/A</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-9900KS</p></td><td  ><p>76.12%</p></td><td  ><p>84.85%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake-R</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>4.0 / 5.0</p></td><td  ><p>127W </p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i9-9900KS-Processor-All-Core-Unlocked/dp/B07YP3J7ZM">Intel Core i9-9900KS</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-10700/F</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>2.9 / 4.8</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.bestbuy.com/site/intel-core-i7-10700-10th-generation-8-core-16-thread-2-9-ghz-4-8-ghz-turbo-socket-lga1200-locked-desktop-processor/6411495.p?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Intel Core i7-10700</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-10600K</p></td><td  ><p>75.42%</p></td><td  ><p>82.57%</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>4.1 / 4.8</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-10600k-core-i5-10th-gen/p/N82E16819118124">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-9700K</p></td><td  ><p>73.62%</p></td><td  ><p>81.12%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake-R</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-9700K-Desktop-Processor-Unlocked/dp/B07HHN6KBZ">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-9900K / F</p></td><td  ><p>73.41%</p></td><td  ><p>84.85%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake-R</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 5.0</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/p/2MN-0004-00828?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i9-9900K</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 3950X</p></td><td  ><p>72.63%</p></td><td  ><p>78.58%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3950X-32-Thread-Processor/dp/B07ZTYKLZW">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 3970X</p></td><td  ><p>72.44%</p></td><td  ><p>77.99%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>32 / 64</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Threadripper-3970X-64-Thread/dp/B0815JJQQ8">AMD Threadripper 3970X</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 3960X</p></td><td  ><p>72.07%</p></td><td  ><p>77.12%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 48</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Threadripper-3960X-48-Thread/dp/B0815JGCXP">AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 5600G</p></td><td  ><p>71.99%</p></td><td  ><p>76.76%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-5600g-ryzen-5-5000-g-series/p/N82E16819113683?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Ryzen 5 5600G </a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT</p></td><td  ><p>71.78%</p></td><td  ><p>79.28%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-7-3800xt-ryzen-7-3rd-gen/p/N82E16819113652">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 3990X</p></td><td  ><p>71.68%</p></td><td  ><p>77.94%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>64 / 128</p></td><td  ><p>2.9 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Threadripper-3990X-128-Thread/dp/B0815SBQ9W">AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT</p></td><td  ><p>71.67%</p></td><td  ><p>78.55%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3900XT-24-Threads-Processor/dp/B089WD454D?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Ryzen 9 3900XT</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 3900X</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3900X-24-Thread-Processor/dp/B07SXMZLP9">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-9980XE </p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Skylake</p></td><td  ><p>18 / 36</p></td><td  ><p>4.4 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>165W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1438940-REG/intel_bx80673i99980x_core_i9_9980xe_extreme_edition.html">@B&HPhoto</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 3900</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>3.1 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td><td  ><p>OEM only</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 3700X</p></td><td  ><p>71.43%</p></td><td  ><p>79.08%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3700X-16-Thread-Processor/dp/B07SXMZLPK?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Ryzen 7 3700X </a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 3800X</p></td><td  ><p>71.3%</p></td><td  ><p>78.67%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3800X-16-Thread-Processor/dp/B07SXMZLP?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Ryzen 7 3800X </a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT</p></td><td  ><p>70.62%</p></td><td  ><p>77.75%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-3600xt-ryzen-5-3rd-gen/p/N82E16819113653">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 3600</p></td><td  ><p>68.63%</p></td><td  ><p>75.59%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3600-12-Thread-Processor/dp/B07STGGQ18">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-7960X</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Skylake</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>2.8 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>165W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=9SIA25V6K29201">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-8700K</p></td><td  ><p>68.47%</p></td><td  ><p>76.41%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-BX80684I78700K-Core-i7-8700K-Processor/dp/B07598VZR8">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 3600X</p></td><td  ><p>68.41%</p></td><td  ><p>75.60%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-3600x/p/N82E16819113568">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper Pro 3975WX</p></td><td  ><p>67.63%</p></td><td  ><p>74.42%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>32 / 64</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Threadripper-PRO-3975WX/dp/B08V5H7GPM">Threadripper Pro 3975WX</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 3300X</p></td><td  ><p>67.49%</p></td><td  ><p>74.6%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-3-3300x-ryzen-3-3rd-gen/p/N82E16819113648">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-9600K</p></td><td  ><p>67.06%</p></td><td  ><p>75.11%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake-R</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/core-i5-9th-gen-intel-core-i5-9600k/p/N82E16819117959">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper Pro 3995WX</p></td><td  ><p>66.18%</p></td><td  ><p>69.28%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>64 / 128</p></td><td  ><p>2.7 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-3995wx/p/N82E16819113675?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Threadripper Pro 3995WX</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-8600K</p></td><td  ><p>65.84%</p></td><td  ><p>73.4%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-8th-gen-core-i5-8600k/p/N82E16819117825">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-8700</p></td><td  ><p>65.57%</p></td><td  ><p>73.66%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/core-i7-8th-gen-intel-core-i7-8700/p/N82E16819117826?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i7-8700</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-8086K</p></td><td  ><p>65.05%</p></td><td  ><p>73.5%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>4.0 / 5.0</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://starmicroinc.net/intel-core-i7-8086k-4-0ghz-socket-1151-6-core-coffee-lake-s-desktop-boxed-cpu-srcx5-bx80684i78086k?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i7-8086K</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-9400 / i5-9400F</p></td><td  ><p>64.85%</p></td><td  ><p>72.08%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>2.9 / 4.1</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-9400F-Desktop-Processor-Graphics/dp/B07MRCGQQ4">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-8400</p></td><td  ><p>63.96%</p></td><td  ><p>71.2%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>2.8 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/core-i5-8th-gen-intel-core-i5-8400/p/N82E16819117824">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD  Ryzen 5 3500X</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.1</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-3500x/p/274-000M-001B6">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i3-10100</p></td><td  ><p>61.88%</p></td><td  ><p>69.08%</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i3-10100-Desktop-Processor-LGA1200/dp/B086MMRW87?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i3-10100</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 2700X</p></td><td  ><p>59.19%</p></td><td  ><p>66.55%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-7-2700x/p/N82E16819113499">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 4750G*</p></td><td  ><p>58.43%</p></td><td  ><p>66.46%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ryzen-4750G-Processor-3-6Ghz-Threads/dp/B08XYTM5QS?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Ryzen 7 4750G</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 3100</p></td><td  ><p>57.75%</p></td><td  ><p>64.21%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 3.9</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-3-3100-ryzen-3-3rd-gen/p/N82E16819113649">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-7980XE</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Skylake</p></td><td  ><p>18 / 36</p></td><td  ><p>2.6 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>165W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Core-i9-7980XE-Processors-BX80673I97980X/dp/B075XRYMDR">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-7900X</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Skylake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 20</p></td><td  ><p>3.3 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>140W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i9-x-series-i9-7900x/p/N82E16819117795">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 2600X</p></td><td  ><p>57.55%</p></td><td  ><p>65.33%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Processor-Wraith-Cooler/dp/B07B428V2L">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-7700K</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>91W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Desktop-Processor-i7-7700K-BX80677I77700K/dp/B01MXSI216">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 2990WX (GM)</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>32 / 64</p></td><td  ><p>3.0 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>250W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx/p/N82E16819113541">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-7820X</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Skylake</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>140W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-BX80673I77820X-Core-i7-7820X-Processor/dp/B072NF4BY3">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 2950X (GM)</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen +</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>180W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Threadripper-Processor-YD295XA8AFWOF/dp/B07GFN6CVF">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 2970WX</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen +</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 48</p></td><td  ><p>3.0 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>250W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Threadripper-2990WX-Processor-YD299XAZAFWOF/dp/B07G25SD1P">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 2700</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / 4.1</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Processor-Wraith-Cooler/dp/B07B41717Z">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 1900X (GM)</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>180W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Threadripper-16-thread-Processor-YD190XA8AEWOF/dp/B0754JNQBP">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-7700</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-BX80677I77700-Processor-Frequency-Generation/dp/B01N0L41N7">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 2600</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 3.9</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-2600/p/N82E16819113496">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-7800X</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Skylake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>140W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i7-x-series-i7-7800x/p/N82E16819117793">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-7600K</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>91W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-7600K-Desktop-Processors-BX80677I57600K/dp/B01MRRPPQS">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 1950X (GM)</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>180W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x/p/N82E16819113447">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 1920X (GM)</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>180W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Threadripper-24-thread-Processor-YD192XA8AEWOF/dp/B074CBJHCT">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-9350KF</p></td><td  ><p>56.42%</p></td><td  ><p>65.19%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>4.0 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>91W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07NC419VF">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 5300G</p></td><td  ><p>55.54%</p></td><td  ><p>62.68%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>4.0 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p>OEM Only</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 1800X</p></td><td  ><p>53.86%</p></td><td  ><p>60.83%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16819113430">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-7600</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 4.1</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-BX80677I57600-Core-Desktop-Processors/dp/B01MYTYSMK">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-8100</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / -</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i3-8100-Desktop-Processor-Unlocked/dp/B0759FTRZL">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-7500</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 3.8</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-7500-Desktop-Processor-BX80677I57500/dp/B01MZZJ1P0">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-7400</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.0 / 3.5</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-9400-Processor-Processors-984507/dp/B07MGZ9FJZ">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 1700X</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 3.9</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-1700X-Processor-YD170XBCAEWOF/dp/B06X3W9NGG">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen +</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / 3.6</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Cooler-YD1600BBAEBOX/dp/B06XNRQHG4">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 1700</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.0 / 3.8</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700/p/N82E16819113428">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-8350K</p></td><td  ><p>53.84%</p></td><td  ><p>61.82%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>4.0 / -</p></td><td  ><p>91W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/core-i3-8th-gen-intel-core-i3-8350k/p/274-000A-003A2?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Core i3 i3-8350K</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-9100</p></td><td  ><p>51.96%</p></td><td  ><p>60.1%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake-R</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i3-9th-gen-core-i3-9100/p/N82E16819118022">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 1600X</p></td><td  ><p>49.99%</p></td><td  ><p>57.28%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-1600X-Processor-YD160XBCAEWOF/dp/B06XKWT7GD">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 1600</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / 3.6</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Cooler-YD1600BBAEBOX/dp/B06XNRQHG4">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 3400G</p></td><td  ><p>48.81%</p></td><td  ><p>55.73%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen +</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3400G-8-Thread-Processor/dp/B07SXNDKNM">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-7400</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4 </p></td><td  ><p>3.0 / 3.5</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/core-i5-7th-gen-intel-core-i5-7400/p/N82E16819117731">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-8100</p></td><td  ><p>48.43%</p></td><td  ><p>59.7%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / -</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i3-8100-Desktop-Processor-Unlocked/dp/B0759FTRZL">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 3200G</p></td><td  ><p>45.96%</p></td><td  ><p>52.98%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen +</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3200G-Unlocked-Processor/dp/B07STGHZK8">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 2400G</p></td><td  ><p>44.84%</p></td><td  ><p>50.67%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 3.9</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-2400g/p/N82E16819113480">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 1500X</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 3.7</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-1500x/p/N82E16819113436">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-7350K</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / -</p></td><td  ><p>60W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/core-i3-7th-gen-intel-core-i3-7350k/p/N82E16819117772">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G5600</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / -</p></td><td  ><p>54W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-pentium-gold-g5600/p/N82E16819117879">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 2200G</p></td><td  ><p>42.16%</p></td><td  ><p>48.56%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 3.7</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3200G-Unlocked-Processor/dp/B07STGHZK8">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 1300X</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 3.7</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Desktop-Processor-Stealth-YD130XBBAEBOX/dp/B0741DLVL7">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-7300</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>4.0 / -</p></td><td  ><p>51W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1304302-REG/intel_bx80677i37300_core_i3_7300_4_0_ghz.html">@BH&Photo</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G5600</p></td><td  ><p>37.52%</p></td><td  ><p>44.7%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / -</p></td><td  ><p>54W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/129945/intel-pentium-gold-g5600-processor-4m-cache-3-90-ghz.html">@Intel</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G5400</p></td><td  ><p>36.57%</p></td><td  ><p>43.31%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / -</p></td><td  ><p>54W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Pentium-Desktop-Processor-BX80684G5400/dp/B0793BQS3R">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-7100</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / -</p></td><td  ><p>51W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i3-7100-Desktop-Processor-BX80677I37100/dp/B01NCESRJX">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 1400</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / 3.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Stealth-YD1400BBAEBOX/dp/B06XKWT8J4">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G4620</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / -</p></td><td  ><p>54W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-pentium-g4620/p/N82E16819117736">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G4560</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / -</p></td><td  ><p>54W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/intel-pentium-g4560/p/N82E16819117743">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Athlon 3000G</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / -</p></td><td  ><p>35W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-4-Thread-Unlocked-Processor-Graphics/dp/B0815JGFQ8">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Athlon 240GE</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / -</p></td><td  ><p>35W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Athlon-Radeon-Graphics-Processor/dp/B07L9V9F6H">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Athlon 220GE</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / -</p></td><td  ><p>35W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Athlon-Radeon-Graphics-Processor/dp/B07L9Q7DLQ">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Athlon 200GE</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / -</p></td><td  ><p>35W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-4-Thread-Processor-Graphics-YD200GC6FBBOX/dp/B07HJWVJDN">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 1200</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.1 / 3.2</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Desktop-Processor-Stealth-YD1200BBAEBOX/dp/B0741DN383">@Amazon</a></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Zhaoxin KaiXian KX-U6780A</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>LuJiaZui </p></td><td  ><p>8 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>2.7 / -</p></td><td  ><p>70W</p></td><td  ><p>N/A</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD A10-9700</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Bristol Ridge</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 3.8</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-a10-7th-gen-a10-9700/p/N82E16819113451">@Newegg</a></p></td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>These tests are from our 2022 test bench. We measured performance for the 1080p CPU gaming benchmarks with a geometric mean of <em>Borderlands 3</em>, <em>Hitman 2</em>, <em>Far Cry 5</em>, <em>Project CARS 3</em>, <em>Red Dead Redemption 2</em>, and <em>Shadow of the Tomb Raider</em>. We measured performance for the 1440p CPU gaming benchmarks with a geometric mean of <em>Borderlands 3</em>, <em>Project CARS 3</em>, <em>Far Cry 5</em>, <em>Red Dead Redemption 2</em>, and <em>Shadow of the Tomb Raider</em>. We conducted these tests in Windows 10.</p><h3 class="article-body__section" id="section-legacy-2020-2022-single-threaded-cpu-benchmarks-rankings"><span>Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings</span></h3><div ><table><caption>Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy - Windows 10</caption><thead><tr><th class="firstcol " ><p> </p></th><th  ><p>Single-Threaded App Score</p></th><th  ><p>Architecture</p></th><th  ><p>Cores/Threads</p></th><th  ><p>Base/Boost GHz</p></th><th  ><p>TDP</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-11900K (ABT off/on)</p></td><td  ><p>100% / 99.57%</p></td><td  ><p>Rocket Lake</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 5950X</p></td><td  ><p>95.31%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i9-12900K DDR5 / DDR4</p></td><td  ><p>95.16% / 94.64%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 24 (8P+8E)</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / 5.2</p></td><td  ><p>125 / 241W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i7-11700K</p></td><td  ><p>94.29%</p></td><td  ><p>Rocket Lake</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 5.0</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 5900X</p></td><td  ><p>93.69%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.8</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 5800X</p></td><td  ><p>92.84%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-11600K</p></td><td  ><p>92.56% / 89.67%</p></td><td  ><p>Rocket Lake</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-12700K DDR5 / DDR4</p></td><td  ><p>91.60%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 20 (8P+4E)</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>125W / 190W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper Pro 5975WX</p></td><td  ><p>89.25%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>64 / 128</p></td><td  ><p>2.7 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 5600X</p></td><td  ><p>89.19%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 5700G</p></td><td  ><p>88.92%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper Pro 5995WX</p></td><td  ><p>88.48%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>64 / 128</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i5-12600K DDR4 / DDR5</p></td><td  ><p>87.85% / 87.82%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 16 (6P+4E)</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>125 / 150W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-10900K</p></td><td  ><p>86.68%</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 20</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 5600G</p></td><td  ><p>85.75%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-10850K</p></td><td  ><p>84.87%</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 20</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 5.2</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-9900KS</p></td><td  ><p>83.13%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake-R</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>4.0 / 5.0</p></td><td  ><p>127W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-11400</p></td><td  ><p>83.09%</p></td><td  ><p>Rocket Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>2.6 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-9900K</p></td><td  ><p>82.63%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake-R</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 5.0</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-10700K</p></td><td  ><p>82.31%</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 5.1</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 5300G</p></td><td  ><p>81.51%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8 </p></td><td  ><p>4.0 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-9700K</p></td><td  ><p>80.36%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake-R</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT</p></td><td  ><p>79.75%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT</p></td><td  ><p>79.11%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT</p></td><td  ><p>78.86%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-10600K</p></td><td  ><p>78.79%</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>4.1 / 4.</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 3800X</p></td><td  ><p>78.37%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 3950X</p></td><td  ><p>78.18%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 3900X</p></td><td  ><p>77.68%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-10700/F</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>2.9 / 4.8</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 4750G</p></td><td  ><p>77.2%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen  3</p></td><td  ><p>8 /16</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 3970X</p></td><td  ><p>76.52%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>32 / 64</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 3960X</p></td><td  ><p>76.42%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 48</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper Pro 3975WX</p></td><td  ><p>76.36%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>32 / 64</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-8700K</p></td><td  ><p>76.32%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 3700X</p></td><td  ><p>76.29%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-8086K</p></td><td  ><p>76.21%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>4.0 / 5.0</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 3600X</p></td><td  ><p>75.85%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-9350KF</p></td><td  ><p>75.72%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>4.0 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>91W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 3300X</p></td><td  ><p>75.62%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-9600K</p></td><td  ><p>75.41%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake-R</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-10980XE</p></td><td  ><p>75.24%</p></td><td  ><p>Cascade Lake-X</p></td><td  ><p>18 / 36</p></td><td  ><p>3.0 / 4.8</p></td><td  ><p>165W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 3990X</p></td><td  ><p>75.10%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>64 / 128</p></td><td  ><p>2.9 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-8700</p></td><td  ><p>74.66%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper Pro 3995WX</p></td><td  ><p>74.20%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>64 / 128</p></td><td  ><p>2.7 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 3600</p></td><td  ><p>73.02%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-9980XE</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Skylake</p></td><td  ><p>18 / 36</p></td><td  ><p>4.4 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>165W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-7700K</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>91W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-8600K</p></td><td  ><p>71.08%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i3-10100</p></td><td  ><p>70.80%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 2700X</p></td><td  ><p>69.53%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-9100</p></td><td  ><p>69.20%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake-R</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 3100</p></td><td  ><p>67.74%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 3.9</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-9400 / -9400F</p></td><td  ><p>67.67%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>2.9 / 4.1</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Xeon W-3175X</p></td><td  ><p>67.51%</p></td><td  ><p>Skylake</p></td><td  ><p>28 / 56</p></td><td  ><p>3.1 / 3.8</p></td><td  ><p>225W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 2600X</p></td><td  ><p>66.78%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-8350K / -8350KF</p></td><td  ><p>66.71%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>4.0 / -</p></td><td  ><p>91W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-8400</p></td><td  ><p>66.03%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>2.8 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 3500X</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.1</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 3900</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>3.1 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-7100</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / -</p></td><td  ><p>51W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 2950X</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen +</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>180W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 2990WX</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>32 / 64</p></td><td  ><p>3.0 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>250W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 2970WX</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen +</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 48</p></td><td  ><p>3.0 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>250W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 3400G</p></td><td  ><p>64.86%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen +</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 1600X</p></td><td  ><p>63.62%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 1800X</p></td><td  ><p>61.99%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-7400</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4 </p></td><td  ><p>3.0 / 3.5</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 3200G</p></td><td  ><p>60.90%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen +</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 2400G</p></td><td  ><p>60.79%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 3.9</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 1300X</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 3.7</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / 3.6</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G5600</p></td><td  ><p>60.13%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / -</p></td><td  ><p>54W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-8100</p></td><td  ><p>60.12%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / -</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 2200G</p></td><td  ><p>57.09%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 3.7</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G5400</p></td><td  ><p>56.79%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / -</p></td><td  ><p>54W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Athlon 3000G</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / -</p></td><td  ><p>35W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Athlon 220GE</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / -</p></td><td  ><p>35W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G4560</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / -</p></td><td  ><p>54W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Athlon 200GE</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / -</p></td><td  ><p>35W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD A10-9700</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Bristol Ridge</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 3.8</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Zhaoxin KaiXian KX-U6780A</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>LuJiaZui </p></td><td  ><p>8 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>2.7 / -</p></td><td  ><p>70W</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>These results are from our 2022 test bench. We calculate the above single-threaded CPU benchmark rankings based on a geometric mean of the Cinebench, POV-Ray, and LAME CPU benchmarks. The most powerful chip gets a 100, and all others are scored relative to it. We conducted these tests in Windows 10.</p><h3 class="article-body__section" id="section-legacy-2020-2022-multi-threaded-cpu-benchmarks-rankings"><span>Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings</span></h3><div ><table><caption>Legacy: Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2020 - 2022 - Windows 10</caption><thead><tr><th class="firstcol " ><p> </p></th><th  ><p>Multi-Threaded App Score</p></th><th  ><p>Architecture</p></th><th  ><p>Cores/Threads</p></th><th  ><p>Base/Boost GHz</p></th><th  ><p>TDP</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper Pro 5995WX</p></td><td  ><p>112.53%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>64 / 128</p></td><td  ><p>2.7 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 3990X</p></td><td  ><p>100.0%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>64 / 128</p></td><td  ><p>2.9 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper Pro 3995WX</p></td><td  ><p>97.59%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>64 / 128</p></td><td  ><p>2.7 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper Pro 5975WX</p></td><td  ><p>93.14%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>32 / 64</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper Pro 3975WX</p></td><td  ><p>82.59%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>32 / 64</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 3970X</p></td><td  ><p>75.74%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>32 / 64</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 3960X</p></td><td  ><p>64.76%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 48</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>280W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Xeon W-3175X</p></td><td  ><p>59.95%</p></td><td  ><p>Skylake</p></td><td  ><p>28 / 56</p></td><td  ><p>3.1 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>225W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 5950X</p></td><td  ><p>53.58%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 3950X</p></td><td  ><p>47.32%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 5900X</p></td><td  ><p>45.89%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.8</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-10980XE</p></td><td  ><p>43.06%</p></td><td  ><p>Cascade Lake-X</p></td><td  ><p>18 / 36</p></td><td  ><p>3.0 / 4.8</p></td><td  ><p>165W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-9980XE</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Skylake</p></td><td  ><p>18 / 36</p></td><td  ><p>4.4 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>165W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 2990WX</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>32 / 64</p></td><td  ><p>3.0 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>250W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 3900X</p></td><td  ><p>38.69%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT</p></td><td  ><p>38.66%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i9-12900K DDR4 / DDR5</p></td><td  ><p>38.39% / 38.11%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 24 (8P+8E)</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / 5.2</p></td><td  ><p>125 / 241W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-11900K (ABT off/on)</p></td><td  ><p>36.01% / 37.07%</p></td><td  ><p>Rocket Lake</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 2970WX</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen +</p></td><td  ><p>24 / 48</p></td><td  ><p>3.0 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>250W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i7-11700K</p></td><td  ><p>34.26%</p></td><td  ><p>Rocket Lake</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 5.0</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-10900K</p></td><td  ><p>33.79%</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 20</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 5.3</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 5800X</p></td><td  ><p>33.48%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-10850K</p></td><td  ><p>33.38%</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 20</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 5.2</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Threadripper 2950X</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen +</p></td><td  ><p>16 / 32</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>180W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 9 3900</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 24</p></td><td  ><p>3.1 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Ryzen 7 5700G</p></td><td  ><p>29.73%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-9900KS</p></td><td  ><p>29.11%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake-R</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>4.0 / 5.0</p></td><td  ><p>127W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i7-12700K DDR5 / DDR4</p></td><td  ><p>28.77% / 28.77%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>12 / 20 (8P+4E)</p></td><td  ><p>2.7 / 3.8</p></td><td  ><p>125 / 190W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT</p></td><td  ><p>28.49%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 3800X</p></td><td  ><p>28.25%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-10700K</p></td><td  ><p>28.17%</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 5.1</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-9900K</p></td><td  ><p>27.78%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake-R</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 5.0</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 3700X</p></td><td  ><p>27.47%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-11600K</p></td><td  ><p>26.79%</p></td><td  ><p>Rocket Lake</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 5600X</p></td><td  ><p>26.15%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 4750G</p></td><td  ><p>26.06%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-10700/F</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>2.9 / 4.8</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-11400</p></td><td  ><p>24.46%</p></td><td  ><p>Rocket Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>2.6 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 5600G</p></td><td  ><p>23.33%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i5-12600K DDR4 / DDR5</p></td><td  ><p>2308% / 23.07%</p></td><td  ><p>Alder Lake</p></td><td  ><p>10 / 16 (6P+4E)</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>125 / 150W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-9700K</p></td><td  ><p>22.81%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake-R</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.9</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT</p></td><td  ><p>22.28%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 3600X</p></td><td  ><p>21.76%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.4</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 3600</p></td><td  ><p>21.41%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 2700X</p></td><td  ><p>21.59%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>105W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-10600K</p></td><td  ><p>20.83%</p></td><td  ><p>Comet Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>4.1 / 4.8</p></td><td  ><p>125W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-8700K</p></td><td  ><p>20.23%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.7</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i7-8700</p></td><td  ><p>20.04%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i7-8086K</p></td><td  ><p>19.30%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>4.0 / 5.0</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 1800X</p></td><td  ><p>19.17%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>8 / 16</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 2600X</p></td><td  ><p>16.96%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-9600K</p></td><td  ><p>16.60%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake-R</p></td><td  ><p>6  / 6</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.6</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 3500X</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.1</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-7700K</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>4.2 / 4.5</p></td><td  ><p>91W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-8600K</p></td><td  ><p>15.93%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 5300G</p></td><td  ><p>15.83%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 3</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>4.0 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 3300X</p></td><td  ><p>15.55%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / 3.6</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 1600X</p></td><td  ><p>15.16%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 12</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>95W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-9400 / -9400F</p></td><td  ><p>15.04%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>2.9 / 4.1</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-8400</p></td><td  ><p>14.76%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>6 / 6</p></td><td  ><p>2.8 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 3100</p></td><td  ><p>14.17%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen 2</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.8 / 3.9</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Core i3-10100</p></td><td  ><p>13.37%</p></td><td  ><p>Rocket Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.3</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-9350KF</p></td><td  ><p>11.76%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>4.0/4.6</p></td><td  ><p>91W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 3400G</p></td><td  ><p>11.31%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen +</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-8350K</p></td><td  ><p>10.74%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>4.0 / -</p></td><td  ><p>91W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-9100</p></td><td  ><p>10.70%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake-R</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.2</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 2400G</p></td><td  ><p>10.56%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>4  / 8</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 3.9</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-8100</p></td><td  ><p>9.61%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / -</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-7400</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4 </p></td><td  ><p>3.0 / 3.5</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 3200G</p></td><td  ><p>8.66%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen +</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.6 / 4.0</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 1300X</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 3.7</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-7100</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / -</p></td><td  ><p>51W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 2200G</p></td><td  ><p>7.99%</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 3.7</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G5600</p></td><td  ><p>5.43%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.9 / -</p></td><td  ><p>54W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Athlon 3000G</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen+</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / -</p></td><td  ><p>35W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Athlon 220GE</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.4 / -</p></td><td  ><p>35W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G5400</p></td><td  ><p>5.13%</p></td><td  ><p>Coffee Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.7 / -</p></td><td  ><p>54W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD Athlon 200GE</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Zen</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.2 / -</p></td><td  ><p>35W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G4560</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Kaby Lake</p></td><td  ><p>2 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / -</p></td><td  ><p>54W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>AMD A10-9700</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>Bristol Ridge</p></td><td  ><p>4 / 4</p></td><td  ><p>3.5 / 3.8</p></td><td  ><p>65W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Zhaoxin KaiXian KX-U6780A</p></td><td  ><p>~</p></td><td  ><p>LuJiaZui </p></td><td  ><p>8 / 8</p></td><td  ><p>2.7 / -</p></td><td  ><p>70W</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>These tests are from our 2022 test bench. The multi-threaded workload column is based on CPU benchmarks performance in Cinebench, POV-ray, vray, Blender (four tests - Koro, Barcellona, Classroom, bmw27), y-cruncher, and Handbrake x264 and x265 workloads. These CPU benchmarks represent performance in productivity-focused applications that tend to require more compute horsepower. The most powerful chip gets a 100, and all others are scored relative to it. We conducted these benchmarks in Windows 10. </p><div ><table><caption>Legacy 2023 CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy Test Setup</caption><thead><tr><th class="firstcol " ><p>Hardware</p></th><th  ></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>AMD Socket AM4 (400- 500-Series)</strong></p></td><td  ><p>AMD Ryzen 2000- 3000- 5000- series processors</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p> </p></td><td  ><p>MSI MEG X570 Godlike</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p> </p></td><td  ><p>2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z490)</strong></p></td><td  ><p>Intel Comet Lake processors</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p> </p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/MSI-Z370-PRO-AC-Motherboard/dp/B07SNSXHN1"></a><a href="null"></a>MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p> </p></td><td  ><p>2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>AMD Socket AM4 (300-Series)</strong></p></td><td  ><p>Ryzen 1000-series processors</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p> </p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/MSI-X370-XPOWER-Titanium-Motherboard/dp/B06WLNZ1JH"></a><a href="null"></a>MSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p> </p></td><td  ><p>2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)</strong></p></td><td  ><p>Intel Coffee Lake, Kaby Lake processors</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p> </p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/MSI-Enthusiastic-Z270-Motherboard-GAMING/dp/B01N6O4YHD"></a><a href="null"></a>MSI Z270 Gaming M7</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p> </p></td><td  ><p>2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel LGA 2066</strong></p></td><td  ><p>Intel Skylake processors</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p> </p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/MSI-Performance-X299-Motherboard-PRO/dp/B072JWYHVX"></a><a href="null"></a>MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p> </p></td><td  ><p>2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>All</strong></p></td><td  ><p>Gigabyte GeForce RTX 3090 Eagle</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p> </p></td><td  ><p>2TB Intel DC4510 SSD</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p> </p></td><td  ><p>EVGA Supernova 1600 T2, 1600W</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p> </p></td><td  ><p>Windows 10 Pro version 2004 (build 19041.450)</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Cooling</strong></p></td><td  ><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Radiator-Advanced-Lighting-Software-compatible/dp/B077G3C6HH"></a><a href="null"></a>Corsair H115i</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div><h3 class="article-body__section" id="section-legacy-pre-2018-desktop-cpu-benchmarks"><span>Legacy: Pre-2018 Desktop CPU Benchmarks</span></h3><p>Recognizing that a lot of older platforms are going to be paired with graphics subsystems multiple generations old, we wanted to define the top of our range to encourage balance between host processing and complementary GPUs. At this point, anyone with a Sandy Bridge-based Core i7 would realize a gain from stepping up to <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-ryzen-2,5615.html">Coffee Lake</a> or <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-7740x-kaby-lake-x-cpu,5107.html">Kaby Lake</a>, for example. And putting AMD's top FX CPUs next to a handful of Core i7s and those older Core i5s represents an upgrade to their status.</p><p>Currently, our hierarchy consists of 13 total tiers. The bottom half of the chart is largely outdated; you'll notice those CPUs dragging down performance in the latest games, whether you have one of the <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gpus,4380.html">best graphics cards</a> or not. If you own a CPU in that range, an upgrade could really take your experience to another level.</p><p>Really, it's the top five tiers or so that remain viable. And in that top half of the chart, an upgrade is typically worthwhile if it's a least a couple of tiers higher. Otherwise, there's just not enough improvement to warrant the expense of a fresh CPU, <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-motherboards,3984.html">motherboard </a>and <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-ram,4057.html">RAM</a><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram-random-access-memory-definition,5757.html"> </a>(not to mention the graphics card and storage solution you'd be considering as well). </p><div ><table><caption>Legacy: Pre-2018 Desktop CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy</caption><tbody><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel CPUs</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>AMD CPUs and APUs</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-8700K </p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-7900X</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-7960X</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i9-7980XE</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-8700K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-7740X</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-7700K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-7820X</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-7700</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-8400</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 1800X</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-7800X</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-7700T</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 1700X</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-6950X</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Ryzen 7 1700</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-6900K</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 1600X</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-6850K</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 1600</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-6800K</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 1500X</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-6700K</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Ryzen 5 1400</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7 6700</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Ryzen 3 1300X</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-5960X</p></td><td  ><p>Ryzen 5 2400G</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-5930K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-5820K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-5775C</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel i7-4960X</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-4930K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-4820K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-4790K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-4770K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-4790</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-4771</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-4770</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-3970X</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-3960X</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-3930K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-3820</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-3770K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-3770</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-7640X</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-7600K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-7600</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-7500</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-7400</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5 6600K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-6600</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-6500</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5 6402P</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-6400</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-5675C</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-4690K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-4670K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-4590</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-4670</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-4570</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel BX80646I54460</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-4440</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-4430</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-3570K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-3570</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-3550</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel CPUs</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>AMD CPUs and APUs</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-990X Extreme</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-980X Extreme</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-975 Extreme</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-2600K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-2600</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-965</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-3470</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-3450P</p></td><td  ><p>Intel Core i7-7700</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-3450</p></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-9370</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-3350P</p></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-8370</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-3330</p></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-8350 w/Wraith</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-2550K</p></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-8320</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-2500K</p></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-8300</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-2500</p></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-8150</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-2450P</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-2400</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-2380P</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-2320</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-2310</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-2300</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-7350K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-7320</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-7300</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-7100</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel CPUs</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>AMD CPUs and APUs</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-980</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-970</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-960</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-875K</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-870</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3 6320</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3 6300</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-6100</p></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-6350</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3 6100T</p></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-4350</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-6098P</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-4360</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-4350</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X4 Black Edition 980</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-4340</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X4 Black Edition 975</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-4170</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-4160</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-4150</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-4130</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-3250</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-3245</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-3240</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-3225</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-3220</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-3210</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-2130</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-2025</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-2120</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-2105</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-2100</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G4620</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G4600</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G4560</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G4500</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G4400</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel CPUs</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>AMD CPUs and APUs</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-8370E</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-8320</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-8120</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-6300</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-6200</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-4300</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-4170</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X6 1075T</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-950</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X4 970 Black Edition</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-940</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X4 965</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-930</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X4 955</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-920</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A10-7890K APU</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i7-860</p></td><td  ><p>Intel A10-7870K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-3220T</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A10-7860K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-2405S</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A10-7850K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-2400S</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A10-7800</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-760</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A10-7700K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-750</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A10-6800K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A10-6790K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A10-6700</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A10-5800K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A10-5700</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>Intel A8-7650K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD A8-7600</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD A8-6600K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD A8-5600K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD A8-3870K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD A8-3870</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD A8-3850</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X4 880K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>Intel Athlon X4 870K)</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>Intel A10-7870K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X4 750K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X4 740</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X4 651K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X4 645</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X4 641</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X4 640</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel CPUs</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>AMD CPUs and APUs</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-6100</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-4130</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD FX-4100</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X6 1055T</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X6 1045T</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X4 945</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X4 940</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X4 920</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-680</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X3 740</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-670</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-661</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A8-6500</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-660</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A8-5500</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-655K</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A6</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i5-650</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A6</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-2120T</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A6-3670K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-2100T</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A6-3650</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X4 635</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X4 630</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel CPUs</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>AMD CPUs and APUs</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E8600</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E8500</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X4 910</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E8400</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X4 910e</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E7600</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X4 810</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-550</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X4 631</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-540</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X4 620</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core i3-530</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X3 460</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G3470</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G3460</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G3450</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G3440</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G3430</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G3420</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G3260</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G3258</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G3250</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G3220</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G2130</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G2120</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G2020</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G2010</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G870</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G860</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G850</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G840</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G645</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G640</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G630</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel CPUs</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>AMD CPUs and APUs</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E8300</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X4 905e</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E8200</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X4 805</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E8190</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X3 710</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E7500</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X3 705e</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E7400</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X2 565 Black Edition</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E6850</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X2 560 Black Edition</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E6750</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G620</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron G1630</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom II X2 545</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron G1620</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X4 9950</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron G1610</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X3 455</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron G555</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X3 450</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron G550</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X3 445</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron G540</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X3 440</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron G530</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X3 435</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron G3950</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X3 425</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron G3930</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron G3930</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron G3900</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel CPUs</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>AMD CPUs and APUs</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X4 9850</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X4 9750</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X4 9650</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E7300</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X4 9600</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E7200</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X3 8850</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E6700</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X3 8750</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E6550</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X2 370K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E6540</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X2 265</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6700</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X2 260</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6600</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X2 255</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core E650</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A6-5500K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6300</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A6</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5800</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A4-7300</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5700</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A4-6400K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium G9650</p></td><td  ><p>AMD A4-6300</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD A4-5400K</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD A4-5300</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD A4-4400</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD A4-4000</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD A4-3400</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD A4-3300</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Sempron 2650</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel CPUs</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>AMD CPUs and APUs</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X4 9550</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X4 9500</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X4 9450e</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E6600</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X4 9350e</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E6420</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X3 8650</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E4700</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X3 8600</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E4600</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X3 8550</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E4500</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X3 8450e</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5400</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X3 8450</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5300</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X3 8400</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5200</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X3 8250e</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core G620T</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X2 250</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X2 245</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon II X2 240</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X2 7850</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X2 7750</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel CPUs</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>AMD CPUs and APUs</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X4 9150e</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Phenom X4 9100e</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E6400</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X2 7550</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E6320</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X2 7450</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E4400</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X2 5050e</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E4300</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X2 4850e/b</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron E3300</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel CPUs</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>AMD CPUs and APUs</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E6300</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X2 6550</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Core 2 Duo E5500</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X2 6500</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2220</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X2 4450e/b</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2200</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X2 4600+</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2210</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X2 4400+</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron E3200</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X2 4200+</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X2 BE-2400</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel CPUs</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>AMD CPUs and APUs</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2180</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron 1600</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron G440</p></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X2 4050e</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ><p>AMD Athlon X2 2300 Black Edition</p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol empty" ></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p><strong>Intel CPUs</strong></p></td><td  ><p><strong>AMD CPUs and APUs</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2160</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron E1500</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron E1400</p></td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td class="firstcol " ><p>Intel Celeron E1200</p></td><td  ></td></tr></tbody></table></div><ul><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d-vs-intel-core-i9-13900k-vs-intel-core-7-13700K">AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D vs Intel Core i9-13900K vs Core i7-13700K: Big Gaming Punch, Smaller Price Tag</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d-vs-intel-core-i9-13900k-faceoff">AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D vs Intel Core i9-13900K Faceoff: Battle of the Gaming Flagships</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i5-13600k-vs-amd-ryzen-7-7700x-and-ryzen-5-7600x-face-off">Intel Core i5-13600K vs AMD Ryzen 7 7700X and Ryzen 5 7600X Face Off</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-vs-intel-core-i9-13900k">AMD Ryzen 9 7950X vs Intel Core i9-13900K Face Off</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7-5800x3d-vs-core-i7-12700k-and-core-i9-12900k-face-off-the-rise-of-3d-v-cache">Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs Core i7-12700K and Core i9-12900K Face-Off: The Rise of 3D V-Cache</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i9-12900k-vs-ryzen-9-5900x-5950x">Intel Core i9-12900K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and 5950X: Alder Lake and Ryzen 5000 Face Off</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i5-12600k-vs-amd-ryzen-5-5600x-ryzen-7-5800x-cpu-face-off">Intel Core i5-12600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and 5800X Face Off: Ryzen Has Fallen</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i7-12700k-vs-amd-ryzen-9-5900x-and-5800x-face-off-intel-rising">Intel Core i7-12700K vs AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and 5800X Face Off: Intel Rising</a></li><li><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i5-12400-vs-amd-ryzen-5-5600x-ryzen-5-5600g-cpu-face-off">Intel Core i5-12400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Face-Off: The Gaming Value Showdown</a></li></ul><ul><li><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs for Gaming</strong></a></li><li><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/features/amd-vs-intel-cpus"><strong>AMD vs Intel</strong></a></li><li><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-13th-gen-raptor-lake-release-date-specifications-pricing-benchmarks-all-we-know-specs"><strong>13th-Gen Raptor Lake</strong></a><strong> All We Know</strong></li><li><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-zen-4-ryzen-7000-release-date-specifications-pricing-benchmarks-all-we-know-specs"><strong>Zen 4 Ryzen 7000</strong></a><strong> All We Know</strong></li><li><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/how-to-overclock-a-cpu"><strong>How to Overclock a CPU</strong></a></li><li><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/how-to-check-cpu-temp-temperature"><strong>How to check CPU Temperature</strong></a></li><li><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></li></ul><iframe src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/dBMx1ASv.html" id="dBMx1ASv" title="How to Choose a CPU" width="960" height="540" frameborder="0" scrolling="auto" allowfullscreen></iframe>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ Intel Core i9-9900K 9th Gen CPU Review: Fastest Gaming Processor Ever ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-9900k-9th-gen-cpu,5847.html</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ More cores, higher frequencies, and performance-boosting Solder TIM place the Core i9-9900K ahead of the pack. Just be prepared to pay for it. ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">HPmwPMQV85jYFP4Z7QDRq</guid>
                                                                                                <enclosure url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kPeMHnQz9EgYC6DPbr94oQ-1280-80.jpg" type="image/jpeg" length="0"></enclosure>
                                                                        <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2019 14:19:03 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                <updated>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:27:01 +0000</updated>
                                                                                                                                            <category><![CDATA[CPUs]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[PC Components]]></category>
                                                                                                <author><![CDATA[ palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) ]]></author>                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ Paul Alcorn ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                    <dc:source><![CDATA[ https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RZRmFeQfPy3etHjBQitbGW.jpeg ]]></dc:source>
                                                                <dc:description><![CDATA[ &lt;p&gt;As a teenager, Paul scraped up enough money to buy a 486-powered PC with a turbo button (yes, a turbo button). Back when floppies were still popular he was already chasing after the fastest spinners for his personal computer, which led him down the long and winding storage road, covering enterprise storage. His current focus is on consumer processors, though he still keeps a close eye on the latest storage news. In his spare time, you’ll find Paul hanging out with his kids or indulging his love of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.&lt;/p&gt; ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <media:content type="image/jpeg" url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kPeMHnQz9EgYC6DPbr94oQ-1280-80.jpg">
                                                            <media:credit><![CDATA[null]]></media:credit>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    </media:content>
                                                    <media:thumbnail url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kPeMHnQz9EgYC6DPbr94oQ-1280-80.jpg" />
                                                                                                                                                                    <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <h2 id="intel-strikes-back">Intel Strikes Back</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:694px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:75.65%;"><img id="" name="" alt="Core i9-9900K" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kPeMHnQz9EgYC6DPbr94oQ.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kPeMHnQz9EgYC6DPbr94oQ.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="694" height="525" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kPeMHnQz9EgYC6DPbr94oQ.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div><figcaption itemprop="caption description" class="pull-"><span class="caption-text">Core i9-9900K </span></figcaption></figure><p>Although Intel added more cores to its previous-gen Coffee Lake processors in an effort to keep up with AMD&apos;s Ryzen CPUs, struggles with its 10nm node obviously delayed a more significant response. The company&apos;s ninth-generation Core processors, otherwise known as the Coffee Lake refresh, represent another step forward in a contentious battle for desktop supremacy as the company looks to maintain its top spots on our list of <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a>. </p><p>Intel&apos;s line-up matches AMD&apos;s Ryzen core-for-core, including a new Core i9 with eight Hyper-Threaded cores (8C/16T) and the highest frequencies we&apos;ve seen in the mainstream space. There&apos;s also a bulked-up Core i7 armed with two extra cores, plus a revamped Core i5. AMD isn&apos;t setting still though: The company recently released its own new flagship, the <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-9-3950x-review">16-core 32-thread Ryzen 9 3950X</a>, to fend off Intel&apos;s new challengers.</p><p>AMD&apos;s high core counts, aggressive prices, and nods to enthusiasts have earned it plenty of goodwill. Now it&apos;s Intel&apos;s turn to respond. The Core i9-9900K, for instance, ships in a a translucent plastic dodecahedron obviously meant to wow system builders, similar to the way AMD impressed with its Threadripper packaging. Intel also switched back to using Solder Thermal Interface Material (STIM) between the die and heat spreader, facilitating better thermal transfer to cope with more cores and higher overclocks. Ninth-gen Core CPUs are also Intel&apos;s first with hardware-based mitigations for the <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/cpu-security-flaw-everything-spectre-meltdown,36237.html">Meltdown and Foreshadow vulnerabilities</a>. These should minimize the performance impact of circumventing recently discovered exploits.</p><p>Core i9-9900K is the fastest mainstream desktop processor we&apos;ve ever tested. But it&apos;s also one of the most expensive. Knowing that Intel does not match AMD&apos;s value proposition, is the ultimate in desktop performance worth paying extra for? The new Core i9 was incredibly impressive through our benchmark suite. However, most users would be better served by cheaper alternatives, such as Core i7-9700K.</p><p>Then again, if money is no object and you have the need for speed, Core i9-9900K is the CPU to buy.</p><h2 id="intel-core-i9-9900k">Intel Core i9-9900K</h2><p>The Coffee Lake refresh begins with three new K-series processors. They all feature the same underlying Coffee Lake microarchitecture as previous-gen models. And as expected, the Core i5 and Core i7 brands are represented. This time around, though, an eight-core, 16-thread Core i9 commands the spotlight.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1173px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:55.33%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mLSBUVjaTccWyksKKsqwJU.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mLSBUVjaTccWyksKKsqwJU.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1173" height="649" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mLSBUVjaTccWyksKKsqwJU.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The new K-series chips are manufactured on Intel's 14nm++ node, include an integrated UHD 630 graphics engine, sport unlocked ratio multipliers that enable easy overclocking, and boast support for dual-channel DDR4-2666 memory. Intel also responds to increasing RAM density by <a href="https://www.anandtech.com/show/13473/intel-to-support-128gb-of-ddr4-on-core-9th-gen-desktop-processors">doubling memory capacity support up to 128GB</a>.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ></td><td  ><strong>Core i9-9900K</strong></td><td  ><strong>Core i7-9700K</strong></td><td  ><strong>Core i5-9600K</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Architecture</strong></td><td  >Coffee Lake</td><td  >Coffee Lake</td><td  >Coffee Lake</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Socket</strong></td><td  >1151</td><td  >1151</td><td  >1151</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cores / Threads</strong></td><td  >8 / 16</td><td  >8 / 8</td><td  >6 / 6</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Base Frequency (GHz)</strong></td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.7</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Boost Frequency ( Active Cores - GHz)</strong></td><td  >1-2 Cores - 5.04 Cores - 4.8 8 Cores - 4.7</td><td  >1 Core - 4.92 Core 4.8 4 Core 4.78 Core 4.6</td><td  >1 Core - 4.62 Core - 4.54 Core 4.46 Core 4.3</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>L3 Cache</strong></td><td  >16MB</td><td  >12MB</td><td  >9MB</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Process</strong></td><td  >14nm++</td><td  >14nm++</td><td  >14nm++</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>TDP</strong></td><td  >95W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >95W</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Memory Speed</strong></td><td  >DDR4-2666</td><td  >DDR4-2666</td><td  >DDR4-2666</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Memory Controller</strong></td><td  >Dual-Channel</td><td  >Dual-Channel</td><td  >Dual-Channel</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>PCIe Lanes</strong></td><td  >x16</td><td  >x16</td><td  >x16</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Integrated UHD Graphics GT2 (Base/Boost MHz)</strong></td><td  >350 / 1200</td><td  >350 / 1200</td><td  >350 / 1150</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Recommended Customer Pricing</strong></td><td  >$488 - $499</td><td  >$374 - $385</td><td  >$262 - $263</td></tr></tbody></table></div><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1166px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:55.06%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/rvbNFpewCAY6R8wdtsc3RK.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/rvbNFpewCAY6R8wdtsc3RK.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1166" height="642" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/rvbNFpewCAY6R8wdtsc3RK.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Core i9-9900K's Solder TIM improves the thermal transfer efficiency between the die and heat spreader, facilitating the headroom needed for two more physical cores on the Core i9 and i7 models without violating a 95W envelope at base clock rates. What's more, the -9900K's base frequency is 3.6 GHz, just 100 MHz lower than the previous-gen Core i7-8700K. And that's after adding those two extra cores.</p><p>The STIM, which is applied inside all three new models, also improves overclockability. Enthusiasts who previously lauded AMD for using Solder TIM in its Ryzen processors should be happy with Intel's decision here.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ></td><td  >Base</td><td  >1 Core</td><td  >2 Cores</td><td  >3 Cores</td><td  >4 Cores</td><td  >5 Cores</td><td  >6 Cores</td><td  >7 Cores</td><td  >8 Cores</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Core i9-9900K (GHz)</strong></td><td  ><strong>3.6</strong></td><td  ><strong>5.0</strong></td><td  ><strong>5.0</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.8</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.8</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.7</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.7</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.7</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.7</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Core i7-9700K (GHz)</strong></td><td  ><strong>3.6</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.9</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.8</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.7</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.7</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.6</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.6</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.6</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.6</strong></td></tr><tr><td  >Core i7-8700K (GHz)</td><td  >3.7</td><td  >4.7</td><td  >4.6</td><td  >4.4</td><td  >4.4</td><td  >4.3</td><td  >4.3</td><td  >-</td><td  >-</td></tr><tr><td  >Core i7-8086K (GHz)</td><td  >4.0</td><td  >5.0</td><td  >4.6</td><td  >4.5</td><td  >4.4</td><td  >4.4</td><td  >4.3</td><td  >-</td><td  >-</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Core i5-9600K (GHz)</strong></td><td  ><strong>3.7</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.6</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.5</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.4</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.4</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.3</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.3</strong></td><td  ><strong>- </strong></td><td  ><strong>- </strong></td></tr><tr><td  >Core i5-8600K (GHz)</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >4.3</td><td  >4.2</td><td  >4.2</td><td  >4.2</td><td  >4.1</td><td  >4.1</td><td  >-</td><td  >-</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>Improved heat dissipation also facilitates impressive clock rates across the ninth-gen models. Core i9-9900K stretches up to 5.0 GHz when two cores are active, outstripping <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-8086k-cpu-8086-anniversary,5658.html">the Core i7-8086K</a> and its ability to hit 5.0 GHz on one core. As you can see in the chart above, Intel is pushing the voltage/frequency curve with its eight-core models. They both feature much higher boost multipliers than previous-gen CPUs. These should help extend Intel's advantage in lightly-threaded tasks like gaming. Meanwhile, the extra cores help Intel compete readily against Ryzen in more taxing workloads.</p><p>Core i7-7820X is perhaps the most comparable CPU from Intel's high-end desktop portfolio. But it employs a fundamentally different design. The $600 chip requires an expensive X299 motherboard, is best paired to a quad-channel memory kit, lacks integrated graphics, and utilizes a mesh architecture for connecting on-die logic instead of the familiar ring bus (check out our <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-mesh-architecture-skylake-x-hedt,34806.html">deep dive</a> for more information). <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-2.html">As we've shown</a>, the mesh architecture has a negative impact on some desktop-class workloads, so it isn't the best solution for enthusiasts.</p><p>As expected, the -9900K's extra cores are accompanied by two additional 2MB slices of L3 cache, adding up to 16MB across the processor. The Core i7-9700K comes with the same 12MB of L3 cache as its predecessor. Given a higher core count, though, this actually represents a lower cache-per-core ratio, meaning Intel purposely disabled some of the -9700K's cache for the purpose of segmentation.</p><p>Intel's Core i7 series traditionally features <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hyper-threading-intel-definition,5746.html">Hyper-Threading</a>, allowing one physical core to execute two software threads simultaneously, thus boosting performance. Kaby Lake-based processors included up to four cores and eight threads, while Coffee Lake offered as many as six cores and 12 threads on the highest-end models. The 95W Core i7-9700K breaks this tradition with eight cores and no HT support. If you assume that HT yields a 15-20 percent performance uptick under ideal conditions, then Intel's clever removal of the feature on its $374 Core i7-9700K should make the 8C/8T CPU faster than the 12-threaded Core i7-8700K in most workloads, maintaining the carefully manicured product stack.</p><p>Ninth-gen Core i5s still come with six cores and no Hyper-Threading, just like the Coffee Lake generation before them. The 95W Core i5-9600K ($265) operates at a 3.7 GHz base clock rate that boosts as high as 4.6 GHz. Intel pairs each core with a 1.5MB of L3 cache, adding up to 9MB.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Model</strong></td><td  ><strong>Cores / Threads</strong></td><td  ><strong>Base Frequency</strong></td><td  ><strong>Boost Frequency</strong></td><td  ><strong>Memory Support</strong></td><td  ><strong>PCIe Lanes</strong></td><td  ><strong>Cache</strong></td><td  ><strong>TDP</strong></td><td  ><strong>Price</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Core i9-9900K</strong></td><td  ><strong>8 / 16</strong></td><td  ><strong>3.6 GHz</strong></td><td  ><strong>5 GHz (1 / 2 Core)4.8 GHz (4 Core)4.7 GHz (6 / 8 Core)</strong></td><td  ><strong>DDR4-2666</strong></td><td  ><strong>16</strong></td><td  ><strong>16MB</strong></td><td  ><strong>95W</strong></td><td  ><strong>$488</strong></td></tr><tr><td  >Ryzen 7 2700X</td><td  >8 / 16</td><td  >3.7 GHz</td><td  >4.3 GHz</td><td  >DDR4-2966</td><td  >16 + 4 (NVMe)</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >105W</td><td  >$329</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Core i7-9700K</strong></td><td  ><strong>8 / 8</strong></td><td  ><strong>3.6 GHz</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.9 GHz (1 Core)4.8 GHz (2 Core)4.7 GHz (4 Core)4.6 GHz (6 / 8 Core)</strong></td><td  ><strong>DDR4-2666</strong></td><td  ><strong>16</strong></td><td  ><strong>12MB</strong></td><td  ><strong>95W</strong></td><td  ><strong>$374</strong></td></tr><tr><td  >Core i7-8086K</td><td  >6 / 12</td><td  >4.0 GHz</td><td  >5.0 GHz</td><td  >DDR4-2666</td><td  >16</td><td  >12MB</td><td  >95W</td><td  >$425</td></tr><tr><td  >Core i7-8700K</td><td  >6 / 12</td><td  >3.7 GHz</td><td  >4.7 GHz</td><td  >DDR4-2666</td><td  >16</td><td  >12MB</td><td  >95W</td><td  >$330</td></tr><tr><td  >Ryzen 7 2700</td><td  >8 / 16</td><td  >3.2 GHz</td><td  >4.1 GHz</td><td  >DDR4-2966</td><td  >16 + 4 (NVMe)</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >95W</td><td  >$229</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Core i5-9600K</strong></td><td  ><strong>6 / 6</strong></td><td  ><strong>3.7 GHz</strong></td><td  ><strong>4.6 GHz (1 Core)4.5 GHz (2 Core)4.4 GHz (4 Core)4.3 GHz (6 Core)</strong></td><td  ><strong>DDR4-2666</strong></td><td  ><strong>16</strong></td><td  ><strong>9MB</strong></td><td  ><strong>95W</strong></td><td  ><strong>$262</strong></td></tr><tr><td  >Core i5-8600K</td><td  >6 / 6</td><td  >3.6 GHz</td><td  >4.3 GHz</td><td  >DDR4-2966</td><td  >16</td><td  >9MB</td><td  >95W</td><td  >$279</td></tr><tr><td  >Ryzen 5 2600X</td><td  >6 / 12</td><td  >3.6 GHz</td><td  >4.2 GHz</td><td  >DDR4-2966</td><td  >16 + 4 (NVMe)</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >65W</td><td  >$229</td></tr><tr><td  >Ryzen 5 2600</td><td  >6 / 12</td><td  >3.4 GHz</td><td  >3.9 GHz</td><td  >DDR4-2966</td><td  >16 + 4 (NVMe)</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >65W</td><td  >$199</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>The new Core CPUs drop into existing 300-series motherboards after a BIOS update, though Intel&apos;s partners also have a slew of Z390 motherboards available, which <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-z390-motherboards,37896.html">you can see here</a>. As we&apos;ll illustrate, the Core i9-9900K, specifically, draws enough power to make VRM selection an important factor in your motherboard purchase, especially if you plan on overclocking. Luckily, most high-end Z390 motherboards already employ beefier power circuitry than the Z370 models.</p><p>Plan on buying a beefy cooler for the Core i9-9900K, too. Its eight-core die hides beneath the same heat spreader used on previous-gen six-core models, meaning that even with Solder TIM, thermal density presents challenges. Intel&apos;s official spec sheet lists a 130W cooler as the entry-level solution. If you plan on tuning, open- or closed-loop liquid cooling is a must. Even then, thermal output could be what limits your overclock.</p><p>Let&apos;s see how the Core i9-9900K and its stablemates perform in our test suite.</p><p><em>Update 10/22</em>: Corrected the recommended pricing for the Ryzen 7 2700X in our efficiency charts. </p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>CPU Benchmark Hierarchy</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p><h2 id="hardware-based-security-fixes-architecture-amp-test-setup">Hardware-Based Security Fixes, Architecture & Test Setup</h2><p>Much like the <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/whiskey-lake-mitigations-in-silicon-intel,37723.html">Cascade and Whiskey Lake processors</a> we recently covered, Intel's Coffee Lake refresh comes with hardware-based mitigations for the Meltdown and L1TF (Foreshadow) vulnerabilities. Current Spectre and Meltdown mitigations, which Intel delivers via software and microcode patches, can reduce performance by up to 10% on newer CPUs, with older hardware suffering even larger losses. The new mitigations, baked directly into the silicon, should reduce or even eliminate the performance impact for a few vulnerabilities.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Vulnerability</strong></td><td  ><strong>Coffee Lake Refresh/Whiskey Lake Mitigation</strong></td><td  ><strong>Cascade Lake Mitigation</strong></td></tr><tr><td  >Variant 1 (Spectre)</td><td  >Operating System</td><td  >Operating System/VMM</td></tr><tr><td  >Variant 2 (Spectre)</td><td  >Microcode + Operating System</td><td  >In-Silicon + Operating System/VMM</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Variant 3 (Meltdown)</strong></td><td  ><strong>In-Silicon</strong></td><td  >In-Silicon</td></tr><tr><td  >Variant 3a</td><td  >Microcode + Operating System</td><td  >Firmware</td></tr><tr><td  >Variant 4</td><td  >Microcode + Operating System</td><td  >Microcode + Operating System/VMM</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>L1TF (Foreshadow)</strong></td><td  ><strong>In-Silicon</strong></td><td  >In-Silicon</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>As we're learning, it may take several processor generations before the fixes for all vulnerabilities are applied at a silicon level. Intel's ninth-gen CPUs do still need a combination of microcode and operating system patches. But at least <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/meltdown-spectre-exploits-intel-amd-arm-nvidia,36219.html">Meltdown</a> and <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-chips-foreshadow-security-flaws,37608.html">L1TF Foreshadow</a> are patched fully in hardware.</p><h2 id="architecture">Architecture</h2><p>Although we don't have much new information about Coffee Lake refresh architectural changes, <a href="https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/1711/intel-discloses-9th-gen-core-refreshes-core-x-and-reintroduces-stim/">David Schoor at WikiChip</a> says the new chips use a familiar ring bus, an internal high-speed pathway connecting the cores and cache.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/aw2FKErzsqhjXmvXD5EgZd.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/pi8fjGZE3F3zmz5zdFmTjK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RqZWXdWgVdSTnrpo48uNM5.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>This stands in contrast to the mesh architecture (<a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-mesh-architecture-skylake-x-hedt,34806.html">deep dive here</a>) that Intel uses on its high-end desktop models, including the eight-core Core i7-7820X. We've found that the mesh architecture has a negative impact on some desktop applications, including games, which <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-2.html">Intel acknowledges</a>. The mesh architecture was designed to increase scalability as it expands to higher core counts in the Xeon family.</p><h2 id="overclocking-rounds-one-and-two">Overclocking, Rounds One and Two</h2><p>We tapped Corsair's H115i v2 to test our Core i9-9900K sample in the U.S. lab. This liquid cooler afforded enough headroom to sustain a 5.0 GHz overclock with a 1.33V Vcore and a Load Line Calibration 4 setting. It kept the chip at a steady 85°C during extended non-AVX stress tests. Folding in AVX instructions did, unfortunately, overwhelm the all-in-one. To reign in the thermal output, we set the AVX offset to -2, meaning the chip ran at 4.8 GHz during AVX-optimized workloads and 5.0 GHz in the absence of AVX instructions. We maintained a temperature of 95°C during three hours of Prime95 using those settings.</p><p>To model real-world settings attainable by enthusiasts with closed-loop liquid coolers, we applied the -2 AVX offset for our 5.0 GHz overclock in the gaming, office and productivity, and rendering tests.</p><p>We did not use an offset for the workstation graphics, compute, power consumption, and temperatures sections.</p><h2 id="meg-z390-godlike">MEG Z390 Godlike</h2><p>We're using MSI's MEG Z390 Godlike as our test platform for all Intel processors. This pricey board retails for $600, but has the power delivery subsystem to support aggressive overclocking.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1043px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:64.53%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QHgc8jRuZqCvMX4fio9PVd.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QHgc8jRuZqCvMX4fio9PVd.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1043" height="673" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QHgc8jRuZqCvMX4fio9PVd.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The MSI MEG Z390 Godlike sits at the top of MSI's motherboard hierarchy. It has a decked-out 18-phase power delivery subsystem that's designed to squeeze every drop of performance out of Intel's new processors. It also comes with a few nifty accessories like an M.2 PCIe riser card and an HDMI streaming card.</p><h2 id="comparison-products">Comparison Products</h2>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="4bd622b4-c97b-4b6d-93df-d7c8bea464ae">            <a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113499" data-model-name="Ryzen 7 2700X" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:83.03%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/c2cT8QyxBHDJ3zenoyjwN3.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 7 2700X</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="19c9ad0e-4ea1-44ff-8669-1e3aa5fc19e3">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/Intel-BX80684I78700K-Core-i7-8700K-Processor/dp/B07598VZR8/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Core i7-8700K" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:122.29%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/j7KjsgaP5iuRZ7RRqGYQTc.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i7-8700K</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="1de068a8-d779-4dff-b05b-75382bace152">            <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-BX80673I77820X-Core-i7-7820X-Processor/dp/B072NF4BY3/?&tag=bom-tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Core i7-7820X" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:113.55%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/szKQEJKd4KxovhGyP8HXaE.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i7-7820X</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  colspan="2"><strong>Test System & Configuration</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Hardware</strong></td><td  ><strong><span>Germany </span></strong><strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)</strong>Intel Core i9-9900K, i7-9700K, i5-9600K, i7-8700K, i5-8600K, i5-8400MSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466<strong>AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)</strong>AMD Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5  MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC 2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466<strong>Intel LGA 2066</strong> Intel Core i7 MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666<span><strong>All Systems</strong></span>GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming) Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System SSD) 4x 1TB Crucial MX300 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Windows 10 Pro (All Updates)<span><strong>U.S. </strong></span><strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)</strong>Intel Core i9-9900K, i7-9700K, i5-9600K, i7-8700K, i5-8600K, i5-8400MSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466<strong>Intel LGA 2066</strong>Intel Core i9-7820XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666, DDR4-3200<strong>AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)</strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933<span><strong>All Systems</strong></span>EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500WWindows 10 Pro (All Updates)</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cooling</strong></td><td  ><span><strong>Germany</strong></span>AMD Wraith RipperAlphacool Ice Block XPXEnermax LiqTech 240 TR4Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut<span><strong>U.S.</strong></span>Wraith RipperCorsair H115iEnermax Liqtech 240 TR4 II</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Power Consumption Measurement</strong></td><td  >Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100 kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500 MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Thermal Measurement</strong></td><td  >1x Optris PI640 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Acoustic Measurement</strong></td><td  >NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>CPU Benchmark Hierarchy</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p><h2 id="vrmark-3dmark-amp-aots-escalation">VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation</h2><h2 id="vrmark-3dmark">VRMark, 3DMark</h2><p>We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wJzXm4wrH4CwFcW7A3u2D5.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vAEETFfPVKhrbnfZr3cbDY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yUQSRz5nYxZHziMGz25TXB.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The Core i9-9900K's eight cores easily beat Ryzen 7 2700X during the DX12 and DX11 CPU benchmarks. For perspective, the Core i9-9900K has the same 4.7 GHz all-core boost frequency as the Core i7-8700K's single-core boost, which is quite impressive. As expected, tuning Core i9-9900K propels it into a league of its own.</p><p>In the DX12 test, we see a nice step forward from Core i7-9700K compared to its predecessor, the Core i7-8700K. That improvement is despite a loss of Hyper-Threading technology on the new Core i7 model.</p><p>Architecturally, the Core i5-9600K is very similar to Core i5-8600K. They offer the same number of cores. But the newer chip's higher clock rates deliver tangible gains. </p><p>UL's VRMark test lets you gauge your system's suitability for use with the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, even if you don't currently own an HMD. UL defines a passing score as anything above 109 FPS. The Core i7-9700K posts a surprisingly strong frame rate, beating the overclocked -9900K. That implies this benchmark runs best on eight physical cores.</p><h2 id="ashes-of-the-singularity-escalation">Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/AGzLnComUiC9VDDgZMrPGP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8sDyQtdaAsRcZxSeCyc2NR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/U2YRKRqKZijtggRWyakbeD.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</em> is a computationally intense title that scales well with thread count. A stock Core i9-9900K beats the rest of the processors, except for an overclocked Core i7-8700K.</p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>CPU Benchmark Hierarchy</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-amp-ai-dawn-of-war-iii">Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III</h2><h2 id="civilization-vi-ai-test">Civilization VI AI Test</h2><p><em>Civilization VI</em>'s AI test measures CPU performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance.</p><h2 id=""></h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/34R9zMQ9arGjkfHfSXUNg.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/34R9zMQ9arGjkfHfSXUNg.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/34R9zMQ9arGjkfHfSXUNg.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The Ryzen processors trail due to their lower per-core performance, defined by instructions per clock (IPC) throughput and frequency. Intel's Coffee Lake microarchitecture already dominates in comparisons of IPC, but bolstering it with higher clock rates extends the design's lead. Notice that the Core i5 and Core i7-9700K also perform exceedingly well, indicating this test runs best on physical cores. </p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-test">Civilization VI Graphics Test</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/EzxYCaEYexNHgDzSptZbtm.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QRv5LyuFvDJYXkDLwFx4MA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HokkkpbxRcJzhQDtmME9iC.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Core i7-9700K takes the lead once again. The Coffee Lake-based Core i7 models remain impressive, though. As you'll see throughout our gaming suite, Intel's Skylake-X-based Core i7-7820X is no match for the mainstream processors' much higher frequencies.</p><h2 id="warhammer-40-000-dawn-of-war-iii">Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/rbH7jRP4SJpnZGn6VbaDdd.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8TCDrDrZZzui6jRXEUUPFo.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UWjEPNjpMQrTYWodHLHFM6.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Ryzen 7 2700X is more competitive in the <em>Warhammer 40,000 </em>benchmark, largely because this game responds well to threading. Core i9 is a powerful chip, but the Core i7-8700K challenges it after some overclocking. Intel&apos;s Core i7-9700K essentially ties the Core i7-8700K, reminding us that its product stack remains carefully segmented.</p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>CPU Benchmark Hierarchy</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p><h2 id="far-cry-5-gta-v-amp-hitman">Far Cry 5, GTA: V & Hitman</h2><h2 id="far-cry-5">Far Cry 5</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/n7JbLyCfFhfHxZXM4MBb44.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/c3vYB3iV49CRMP5TRNQDfK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zAtt7KRiP3XevAscu7dgRk.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Although the overclocked Core i9 leads, a tuned Core i7-8700K offers similar performance. More than likely, the extra $118 you pay for a Core i9 probably isn't worth it for gamers.</p><h2 id="grand-theft-auto-v">Grand Theft Auto V</h2><p><em>Grand Theft Auto V</em><span> </span>favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/9eXykvxgFweofcuMfB8dKV.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RCz7BAtDdJpoHjsEpBMm3P.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7TQLB54mJ9YQCjCiYsKKxk.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The -9900K leads in convincing fashion. The Core i7 and i5 models also enjoy a healthy speed-up.</p><h2 id="hitman">Hitman </h2><p>Our <em>Hitman</em> benchmark was rendered almost useless by a patch that imposed a 90 FPS performance cap. A subsequent update restored our test to its prior glory.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/j9nux33pHJh4z5AjzSBi5R.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/P68TNc4Q3y57n3imSqPXzf.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RPShnwuMYi5L8nv4cdhDJX.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Given its price point, the Core i5-9600K appears to be a phenomenal chip for gaming, even without taking overclocking into consideration. Notice that the new i5 often outperforms Intel&apos;s previous-gen Core i7-8700K. Really, that isn&apos;t surprising given both chips&apos; multi-core Turbo Boost ratios. A lack of Hyper-Threading also helps in some games.</p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>CPU Benchmark Hierarchy</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p><h2 id="shadow-of-war-amp-project-cars-2">Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2</h2><h2 id="middle-earth-shadow-of-war">Middle-earth: Shadow Of War</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kqoVXRMyjvK73XfEguTTuP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RMBsYxE68v7cZocFuY2hk5.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3XNh6wr6ffKbBQE7Gq4dvW.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Shadow of War</em> leans heavier on graphics resources than host processing, so we don't see large deltas between the fastest and slowest CPUs. This is another reminder that most games are limited by your GPU, so plan accordingly if you're running into a bottleneck.</p><h2 id="project-cars-2">Project CARS 2</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xv37WoNLsRFGtiAcCzjxvG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kNJRBhaLfmTrhRgYxy5HRk.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/bW7r59SJG2F3eo5v2uahMT.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Although <em>Project CARS 2</em> is purportedly optimized for threading, clock rates obviously affect this title&apos;s frame rates. Intel&apos;s per-core performance advantage pays big dividends in this title, but Core i5-9600K inexplicably trails the previous-gen -8600K. Repeated testing confirmed the results.</p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>CPU Benchmark Hierarchy</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p><h2 id="office-amp-productivity">Office & Productivity</h2><h2 id="adobe-creative-cloud">Adobe Creative Cloud</h2><p>Even though this suite has a few parallelized workloads, its final score is heavily influenced by the lightly-threaded tasks common in most desktop applications.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Eo9KaF3pVfRKAjQXeyw57N.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3Hb5ZDnZMVKEeZWZbQCMXJ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/twapRy7h5RRA7f84662cKf.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8gvwkGbxdLHpaAaKNwBSG9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ex7dCH4vpq2Y5o6cBbBFVJ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kPjEXpqtw5N6ujWkFsaKKb.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Core i9-9900K takes a commanding lead throughout these tests. However, the Core i7-9700K proves to be an adept competitor. It should come close to matching the Core i9-9900K after overclocking in these types of lightly-threaded tasks.</p><h2 id="web-browser">Web Browser</h2><p>The Krakken suite evaluates JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. Like most browser-based benchmarks, single-threaded performance reigns supreme. These tests expose the trade-offs you make for an all-core overclock, particularly with the second-gen Ryzen processors.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/qvoWaqeKonc7kzUeXSCFvW.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GcuJ2kjb2J23wipxFtLJX7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7veyJdnKMAR6hAAo3ERvPm.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Intel's single-threaded advantage is clear. Once again the -9700K offers a nice step up from the -8700K, while Intel's Core i5-9600K proves its mettle. Our overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X trails the stock configuration in many of these tests because it offers a higher boost clock rate in stock form.</p><h2 id="productivity">Productivity</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iEDbzvCwyyoSKj2gJD8eiH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/79DeqDm72g2siUjcp6GyjX.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kpHckwNenaJQDLTFhUXpZW.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/T5UUcnMofWzkU5fVCAbpd7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yWwTVDteVuuiEH8fcJB247.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. Core i7-7820X lags the rest of the test pool, possibly as a byproduct of its mesh architecture. Meanwhile, the Core i7-8700K and -9900K are closely matched. </p><p>Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. This workload responds well to more threads, so Ryzen 7 pops back up near the top of our test pool.</p><p>The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark&apos;s binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized. This application responds well to the Ryzen 7 2700X, which scores a rare win against the stock Core i9-9900K.</p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>CPU Benchmark Hierarchy</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p><h2 id="rendering-encoding-amp-compression">Rendering, Encoding & Compression</h2><h2 id="rendering">Rendering</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/stTdm4VmHXrTiTXBX3Z5f.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3mqZYQWznkTjfaJmTVa7EF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xvdSPXXH8wDGd2kVpwBSU4.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/odPyNm9B6XK3csqm9dXkpN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/r5Ja2t7BukDrukCgF7gM68.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eywymg8uHDjNPpzQDz5hP4.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RFudLwfGicvDV3Vv8BhoN6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nQpb9EGrmNPs5Q34ptSRxn.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7eExYCWcE9WveUS8KX7nSb.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Intel’s processors extend their lead in the single-threaded POV-Ray and Cinebench tests. However, it's easy to see that AMD’s extra cores help offset their lower IPC in threaded benchmarks.</p><p>The Core i9-9900K sets a new high water mark for mainstream desktop performance at stock and overclocked settings in the threaded POV-Ray and Cinebench benchmarks.</p><h2 id="encoding-amp-compression">Encoding & Compression</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SYMNGiCETaLYuNcc5b4tAH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tohTo7tjXBzFHVogJ7BM6Y.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Cj8bM4FoyDQmQDQzPJPmwY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/q7cmRtDLVohkHS7vSAUHnH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/rHBWwgZv7EBLgbXBmfpEf9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Zp73L5qUsxA32B6sixKSr7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HwnSETr7UfPUA2pmZiYH4P.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Our threaded compression and decompression metrics work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. Ryzen 7 2700X is competitive in these workloads, especially after overclocking. But Intel&apos;s Core i9-9900K carves out a commanding lead.</p><p>y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi, is a great test to use for measuring the affect of AVX instructions. Core i7-7820X sports two 256-bit AVX FMA units per core that operate in parallel, so it isn&apos;t surprising to see that CPU leading through the multi-threaded test. Core i9-9900K is still highly competitive, but we dialed back its all-core AVX frequency to 4.8 GHz for our overclocked configuration. Consequently, the tuned -9900K is outperformed by the stock configuration, which benefits from the dual-core 5.0 GHz AVX frequency. </p><p>Core i9-9900K leverages high clock frequencies to dominate the HandBrake x265 test, which relies heavily on AVX instructions, and the H.264 test. Notice that the tuned -9900K outpaces the stock configuration in these tests despite our 4.8 GHz AVX offset. That&apos;s because the stock setup drops to an all-core 4.7 GHz under full utilization.</p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>CPU Benchmark Hierarchy</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p><h2 id="workstation-graphics">Workstation Graphics</h2><p>While workstation graphics are a niche for most readers, some might consider using the -9900K's eight cores and 16 threads for professional tasks. Really, though, there aren't many threaded applications for real-time graphics output. These benchmarks mostly benefit from high IPC and frequency.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/H44CpqjDYqCqxRGvE5jeoB.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ecNDhKrkqbXMzk3vQzAC3T.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Cinebench profits equally from more cores and higher clock rates. That makes it one of the very few benchmarks able to show off what Core i9-9900K can do compared to Core i7-8700K.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1111px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.98%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mUjPCfUGmy984S9LtfK8CJ.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mUjPCfUGmy984S9LtfK8CJ.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1111" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mUjPCfUGmy984S9LtfK8CJ.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ndSPAhLveGw6JJnMTZ2xqX.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mXGZ6KPFtRyyg8gu82b9be.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The older versions of Maya and Catia appear to be bottlenecked, despite the potent Nvidia Quadro P6000 being pushed to its limit. In the end, it makes no difference whether the CPU is overclocked or not. The differences are marginal from the Core i7-8700K upward.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7WsWiQzG5cKvFedKUPCWFK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cWpGUwqtyVzmcnRA3DYm66.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The Blender loop relies on OpenGL and real-time graphics, but host processing power still helps. However, these applications use hardly more than four cores, so high per-core performance pays off.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1111px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.98%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PfXvfDkTKkzXewDnxPNxwG.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PfXvfDkTKkzXewDnxPNxwG.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1111" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PfXvfDkTKkzXewDnxPNxwG.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The same could be said for the GPU composite score of 3ds Max because, in the end, the highest clock rate wins. Multi-threading is not really in demand.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1111px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.98%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wy2LcX48TqfC5jSKMmyaoU.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wy2LcX48TqfC5jSKMmyaoU.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1111" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wy2LcX48TqfC5jSKMmyaoU.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>To summarize, we could say there is little added value in upgrading from a fast quad-core to a slightly faster eight-core CPU in these types of applications.</p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>CPU Benchmark Hierarchy</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p><h2 id="workstation-compute">Workstation Compute</h2><p>The CPU composite score of SolidWorks combines render and compute performance. Multi-core scaling isn't the emphasis. Rather, per-core performance moves the needle furthest.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1111px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.98%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xNjVR28udMXmt8UYsxuGuc.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xNjVR28udMXmt8UYsxuGuc.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1111" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xNjVR28udMXmt8UYsxuGuc.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>If the workload consists of strictly rendering, then Core i9-9900K is hard to beat.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1111px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.98%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3E8Y84kyfPmUbb5VRoZfKe.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3E8Y84kyfPmUbb5VRoZfKe.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1111" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3E8Y84kyfPmUbb5VRoZfKe.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Interestingly enough, AMD's CPUs dominate the 3ds Max composite score (this program seems better-optimized for AMD's architecture in general). For the first time, Core i7-8700K doesn't stand a chance against the Core i9.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1111px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.98%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QDhQyeVoojd8wmEP5RNYuC.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QDhQyeVoojd8wmEP5RNYuC.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1111" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QDhQyeVoojd8wmEP5RNYuC.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Intel's CPUs bounce back in the rendering test, whereas AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X drops a few spots.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1049px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:79.41%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yyXDcjpH3GiQLRDwxTDZ6K.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yyXDcjpH3GiQLRDwxTDZ6K.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1049" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yyXDcjpH3GiQLRDwxTDZ6K.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Creo reminds us that maximizing work done per clock cycle is critical. It'll probably take a very long time for developers to optimize for threading.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:711px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.96%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zNryXJD6Lw5B9w8qunCc7S.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zNryXJD6Lw5B9w8qunCc7S.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="711" height="533" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zNryXJD6Lw5B9w8qunCc7S.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Almost everything in this application is perfectly parallelized, so a combination of threads and per-core performance form a brutal alliance.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:711px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.96%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PuEst9fvvBPy6JfVPegK9.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PuEst9fvvBPy6JfVPegK9.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="711" height="533" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PuEst9fvvBPy6JfVPegK9.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Aside from the render workloads, there&apos;s no reason to buy a Core i9 over the older Core i7-8700K. But then the entire platform is out of place and you might want to consider a real workstation instead.</p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>CPU Benchmark Hierarchy</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p><h2 id="power-consumption">Power Consumption</h2><p>Power consumption measurements are always a bit tricky, but as long as the 12V supply (EPS) readings and the sensor values ​​of the power supply of the mainboard plus voltage transformer losses plausibly coincide, everything is fine. Therefore, we again rely on the pure package power to avoid possible influences from the motherboard. The values ​​of the PWM controller are really very reliable if taken as averages over a period of a few minutes.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UThmfDHNRTjfixhQr5vD3S.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UThmfDHNRTjfixhQr5vD3S.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UThmfDHNRTjfixhQr5vD3S.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>At idle, everything is perfectly fine. Both the stock and overclocked Core i9-9900K sip power. The fact that the Ryzen 5 2600X lands at the top of our chart is confirmed by our bad sample. This is definitely not a general AMD problem though, as the Ryzen 7 2700X shows. In general, however, all the CPUs are quite economical.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UQXCekStHXkVYJrX8BxRdV.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UQXCekStHXkVYJrX8BxRdV.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UQXCekStHXkVYJrX8BxRdV.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Both -9900K configurations are still in good shape during the CAD workload: the chip's power consumption is only slightly higher than the Core i7-8700K. So far, the very high voltage needed for stable operation does not make a disturbing impression. Everything is still in the green.</p><p>Power consumption is also within the expected values during the gaming loop, especially since the game does not fully utilize all cores. Although a comparison test with <em>Assassin's Creed Origins</em> did yield much higher values (up to 20W more), that game is so poorly optimized that we measure completely different values each time.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5fXa7YGhCW4VYvd6yhGTMA.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5fXa7YGhCW4VYvd6yhGTMA.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5fXa7YGhCW4VYvd6yhGTMA.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Five measurements with five strongly diverging results are not something that would be apt for a fair comparison. However, at 5 GHz, the Core i9-9900K never really crossed the 100W limit, so it was still cool enough to make ends meet. At least for games.</p><p>But power becomes more of an issue in some productivity applications because a constant load on all cores at high clock rates is almost too much. And to be clear, the Core i9-9900K gets super hot faced with Prime95 and AVX instructions (205W stock, 250W overclocked), exceeding the specified TDP.</p><p>We measured 137W (232W) during the Cinebench test, and we topped 145W (241W overclocked) under the larger Blender workload. We even pushed past 120W (198W overclocked) with various CAD plug-ins for Creo and SolidWorks. The limits of normal all-in-one compact water cooling solutions are in sight during standard operation at 4.7 GHz on all cores, but you can easily overwhelm cheaper AIOs during overclocking.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tdauREAwqYvHhsTjDHesSH.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tdauREAwqYvHhsTjDHesSH.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tdauREAwqYvHhsTjDHesSH.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Finally, and because we like the additional detail, here are the line charts corresponding to our long-term measurements.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1390px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:59.93%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3SxoStnyPZTQanvnT3S7Db.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3SxoStnyPZTQanvnT3S7Db.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1390" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3SxoStnyPZTQanvnT3S7Db.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>CPU Benchmark Hierarchy</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p><h2 id="temperatures">Temperatures</h2><p>As we did in the past with Intel's Core i7-8700K, we again created absolutely identical test and measurement conditions. We use the same type of CPU cooler (Alphacool XPX), the same Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut TIM, and the Alphacool Ice Age 2000 chiller that, as always, provides exactly 20°C water temperature. We weigh the thermal paste (0.15 grams) on a laboratory balance to further ensure accuracy. Thus, our older test results are usable for comparisons to the Intel Core i9-9900K.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1510px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:56.09%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MGHRfURaa8T98ZazpGXUDG.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MGHRfURaa8T98ZazpGXUDG.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1510" height="847" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MGHRfURaa8T98ZazpGXUDG.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><h2 id="thermal-grease-vs-solder">Thermal Grease Vs. Solder</h2><p>We have an important preliminary about the change from the thermal paste TIM on the Core i7-8700K to the solder of the Core i9-9900K. Since the height of the CPU has remained absolutely the same with the new chips, one can also assume that Intel uses the same heatspreader as the older CPUs. The distance between the die and heat spreader was previously relatively high due to the design, as the chips have a relatively thick layer of thermal paste.</p><p>Therefore, we can assume the solder layer also turns out to be a bit thicker than it would actually have needed. This fact, and the significantly smaller heat spreader (surface area) compared to the LGA 2066 CPUs, will certainly explain why the results that follow are the same as they were. Good, but not perfect.</p><p>The Intel Core i7-8700K achieves just under 160 watts in the stress test with Prime95, so we ran the Intel Core i9-9900K with a similar load. The Core i9-9900K did not always use all its cores fully, so slight fluctuations occur despite the same average waste heat over the entire time. But these remain negligible. Logically, the Intel Core i9-9900K runs much cooler than with Solder TIM:</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1389px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:70.48%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PbdtoPMYFTuiqFDfYU6qFU.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PbdtoPMYFTuiqFDfYU6qFU.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1389" height="979" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PbdtoPMYFTuiqFDfYU6qFU.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>With nearly identical power dissipation and identical cooling conditions, we calculate a mean package temperature of 57°C for the Intel Core i9-9900K and 75°C for the Intel Core i7-8700K. This results in a delta of 18°. Tests of the delidded Intel Core i7-8700K show that this is not necessarily optimal – the delta was at least 20° (better by 2°). In either case, even the industrial solder solution is always worth more than the thermal paste of the previous CPU generation.</p><h2 id="leakage-at-different-temperatures-but-same-load">Leakage at different temperatures but same load</h2><p>CPUs are thermistors, where the internal resistance decreases with rising temperature instead of rising. That makes it interesting to see how the temperatures, and thus the leakage currents (and consequently the power loss), develop with the same applied load. To measure this, we have the Core i9-9900K overclocked under Prime95 run once with chiller and with a normal AiO compact water cooling (Corsair H110i).</p><p>The result turns out as expected. While the chiller the CPU is at an average of 63° C, but the 90° C with the AiO is already near the absolute limit. Mind you, this result is at stock settings with an AVX load. Interestingly, when using SSE, the delta of 27°C remains nearly the same, as it is still 25°C on average.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1389px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:59.97%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/L4VXhJWFyumXDsrkR6QFNL.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/L4VXhJWFyumXDsrkR6QFNL.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1389" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/L4VXhJWFyumXDsrkR6QFNL.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>But back to the AVX load, because what does the almost 30° C temperature difference ultimately mean for power consumption? Here, too, we are amazed to a certain extent, because between the 205W with chiller and the 229W with the AiO compact water cooling, there is a difference of 24W. We can only attribute that to the now stronger leakage currents.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1389px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:59.97%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LYS7BzgNoazb6UAUfCa43a.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LYS7BzgNoazb6UAUfCa43a.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1389" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LYS7BzgNoazb6UAUfCa43a.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>You can see the remaining power consumption figures on the previous page, but under almost ideal conditions. The better the cooling, the better the power consumption. However, we were only able to record these large differences at package temperatures above 80°C, which then almost rise like an avalanche. This would dissuade us from air cooling, even if the Intel Core i9-9900K should not be overclocked any further. The 4.7 GHz all-core and a constant load are quite sufficient to make air cooling absurd.</p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>CPU Benchmark Hierarchy</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p><h2 id="conclusion">Conclusion</h2><p>Intel's Core i9-9900K answers several requests from the enthusiast community. It sports more cores, higher clock rates, and effective Solder TIM. The delayed 10nm process could be a liability as AMD works feverishly to respond with new 7nm processors. But for now, these 14nm++ CPUs are winners.</p><p>In the chart below, we plot gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99<sup>th</sup> percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then convert into a frame-per-second measurement. Bear in mind that we tested with a Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 at 1920x1080 to alleviate graphics-imposed bottlenecks. Differences between our test subjects would shrink with higher resolutions.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QgZdDTy49AaCiGwMitLWAM.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vW5DJLDyyqSuknyVrTe6B5.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mrRmSEhKJ3KcnCpfsg4nmJ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tK7BsXJ3t6zrXTuPgYGGUH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4SzqRWgdQUvpRRef5HtAzS.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zKb37wuYayRJdJX9S5fCFV.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DUbMbNVatZxSTNmd55fz3V.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tLSJDYikQUoHZ68hCJxSmP.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Core i9-9900K takes the crown as the fastest gaming processor on the market, and it proves to be highly capable in the threaded workloads that AMD&apos;s Ryzen processors used to dominate. Pricing is still a problem for Intel, though. You pay dearly for the extra cores, while a majority of games don&apos;t fully utilize them. The Core i7-9700K, even at stock settings, is competitive with the -9900K in most titles, especially considering the $115 you save by stepping down a notch. We haven&apos;t overclocked our -9700K yet, though, so the small deltas observed between the two chips may shrink further.</p><p>Although AMD&apos;s second-gen Ryzen processors narrowed the gap with Intel&apos;s Coffee Lake-based line-up, these ninth-generation Core chips redefine the playing field. The $263 Core i5-9600K at stock settings regularly beat an overclocked $329 Ryzen 7 2700X in games, and we expect even more performance from the Core i5 once we overclock it. Ryzen 7 2700X does come with a capable cooler, but the Core i5’s lower price diminishes AMD’s value proposition for gaming.</p><p>In the end, Core i9-9900K serves up impressive performance across our benchmark suite. If you regularly run heavily-threaded applications, it&apos;s probably worth paying a premium for. But if you need real workstation-class features, you should step up to an appropriate platform.</p><p>And make no mistake, the Core i9-9900K requires expensive accommodations. You need a premium motherboard with robust power delivery, particularly if you plan on overclocking. The -9900K can drop into existing Z370 motherboards, but we’re sure that many of them will struggle with the chip’s voracious appetite for current. Also plan on investing in a high-end PSU.</p><p>The -9900K proved to be an impressive overclocker, largely due to its Solder TIM. Don&apos;t think that means you can skimp on cooling, though. High temperatures hampered our overclocking efforts, and a more capable cooler could have facilitated additional headroom. Intel even threw in new packaging to help win back the hearts and minds of enthusiasts.</p><p>Now the question is whether Intel can satisfy enthusiast demand. After all, we&apos;ve already heard reports of delayed pre-order shipments. Even though the company assures us that it can accommodate demand for eight-core CPUs, this doesn&apos;t bode well for availability as the company grapples with an ongoing shortage of 14nm manufacturing capacity.</p><p>The Core i9-9900K has no direct rival on a mainstream platform, but its high price point encroaches into the realm of AMD’s upcoming $649 12-core Threadripper 2920X (which has hefty platform requirements of its own). That chip isn&apos;t available yet, so its performance remains shrouded in mystery. For something more readily available, look to the previous-gen Threadripper 1920X.</p><p>Unless you regularly use heavily-threaded applications, it’s hard to justify stepping up to Core i9-9900K from any modern four- or six-core CPU. With that said, Core i9-9900K is the fastest mainstream processor on the market. Plenty of enthusiasts opt for the best possible performance in both single- and multi-threaded workloads at any price. There, the Core i9-9900K doesn’t disappoint.</p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>CPU Benchmark Hierarchy</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ Intel Discontinues Optane-Packing Core+ i7-8700, i5-8400, i5-8500 Models ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-plus-discontinue-micron-optane,38451.html</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ Intel is discontinuing its Core+ i7-8700, i5-8400, and i5-8500 models. ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">wYu6tTbJ74YT9urWS6oWQK</guid>
                                                                                                <enclosure url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7B2bYDZ6D8ra9iZKsNgcFh-1280-80.png" type="image/png" length="0"></enclosure>
                                                                        <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:56:03 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                <updated>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 12:53:48 +0000</updated>
                                                                                                                                            <category><![CDATA[CPUs]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[PC Components]]></category>
                                                                                                <author><![CDATA[ palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) ]]></author>                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ Paul Alcorn ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                    <dc:source><![CDATA[ https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RZRmFeQfPy3etHjBQitbGW.jpeg ]]></dc:source>
                                                                <dc:description><![CDATA[ &lt;p&gt;As a teenager, Paul scraped up enough money to buy a 486-powered PC with a turbo button (yes, a turbo button). Back when floppies were still popular he was already chasing after the fastest spinners for his personal computer, which led him down the long and winding storage road, covering enterprise storage. His current focus is on consumer processors, though he still keeps a close eye on the latest storage news. In his spare time, you’ll find Paul hanging out with his kids or indulging his love of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.&lt;/p&gt; ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <media:content type="image/png" url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7B2bYDZ6D8ra9iZKsNgcFh-1280-80.png">
                                                            <media:credit><![CDATA[null]]></media:credit>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    </media:content>
                                                    <media:thumbnail url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7B2bYDZ6D8ra9iZKsNgcFh-1280-80.png" />
                                                                                                                                                                    <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1510px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:34.57%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7B2bYDZ6D8ra9iZKsNgcFh.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7B2bYDZ6D8ra9iZKsNgcFh.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1510" height="522" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7B2bYDZ6D8ra9iZKsNgcFh.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Intel <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-branding-optane-memory,36831.html">introduced its new Core+ branding last year</a>, but according to Intel's documentation, it has already slated the new processors for discontinuance due to a lack of demand.</p><p>In short, Intel's Core+ branding indicates the processors, or the devices they are installed in, come bundled with Optane memory. These three bundles, which include a processor and a 16GB Optane memory caching drive, were the only three bundled SKUs. The news comes as Intel and Micron are parting ways on their 3D XPoint (the underlying memory behind Optane) joint venture.</p><p>Intel now says its customers should place their last orders for the Core+ processor bundles by September 30, provided supplies are still available, and that the final deliveries should be taken no later than December 27, 2019.</p><div ><table><thead><tr><th  >Kit</th><th  >Part Number</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th  >Core+ i7-8700 + 16GB Optane</th><td  >BO80684I78700</td></tr><tr><th  >Core+ i5-8500 + 16GB Optane</th><td  >BO80684I58500</td></tr><tr><th  >Core+ i5-8400 + 16GB Optane</th><td  >BO80684I58400</td></tr></tbody></table></div><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:599px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:87.31%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/83NrLfZ7nHobCx3zH9TAnJ.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/83NrLfZ7nHobCx3zH9TAnJ.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="599" height="523" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/83NrLfZ7nHobCx3zH9TAnJ.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Intel's Optane memory is a collection of software and hardware, such as 3D XPoint memory, that leverage the power of next-generation memory to boost storage performance. The Optane modules come as both cache and normal bootable SSDs that fill the <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-optane-3d-xpoint-memory,5032.html">good</a>, <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-optane-ssd-800p,5497.html">better</a>, <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-optane-ssd-900p-3d-xpoint,5292.html">best</a> verticals, so they represent a growing portion of Intel's storage business.</p><p>The bundled kits were largely seen as an attempt to boost Intel's sales of Optane, which apparently haven't met expectations given <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-micron-3d-xpoint-imft,37461.html">Micron CEO Sanjay Mehrotra's revelation</a> that 3D XPoint sales to Intel were flagging, thus incurring under-utilization charges that impacted Micron's bottom line. That's particularly devastating for Micron because it doesn't have any 3D Xpoint products on the market, making Intel its only avenue to market for sales.</p><p>Micron even indicated that it was possible that the company wouldn't sell <em>any</em> 3D XPoint to Intel in the future. As such, Mehrotra announced that Micron would re-negotiate the terms of future 3D XPoint development with Intel.</p><p>That apparently didn't go too well, as the two companies ceased joint development in July 2018, and yesterday Micron announced its intention to buy out Intel's share of their IMFT (Intel Micron Flash Technologies) joint venture. Intel plans to continue to produce 3D XPoint, the revolutionary new memory behind the Optane brand, in its own fabs even after the Micron divorce.</p><p>Intel has the right to continue to produce 3D XPoint independently, and given its continuing investment in new facilities to produce 3D XPoint, it is unlikely that Intel is discontinuing these products due to the end of the partnership. Instead, it appears that the bundled products simply didn't gain any traction in the market.</p><p>We have reached out to Intel for comment and will update as necessary.</p><iframe src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/zYBgfFoA.html" id="zYBgfFoA" title="Buy the Right CPU" width="1920" height="1080" frameborder="0" scrolling="auto" allowfullscreen></iframe>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ The Core i7-8086K Review: 40 Years Of x86 ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-8086k-cpu-8086-anniversary,5658.html</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ Intel pays homage to the 40th anniversary of the 8086, the first x86 processor, with the limited-edition Core i7-8086K. ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">Ve64cAEsEip9QvQjqvjuQT</guid>
                                                                                                <enclosure url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gNS4LfKTyMoGQ5URjvTVEj-1280-80.jpg" type="image/jpeg" length="0"></enclosure>
                                                                        <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                <updated>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:30:20 +0000</updated>
                                                                                                                                            <category><![CDATA[CPUs]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[PC Components]]></category>
                                                                                                <author><![CDATA[ palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) ]]></author>                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ Paul Alcorn ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                    <dc:source><![CDATA[ https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RZRmFeQfPy3etHjBQitbGW.jpeg ]]></dc:source>
                                                                <dc:description><![CDATA[ &lt;p&gt;As a teenager, Paul scraped up enough money to buy a 486-powered PC with a turbo button (yes, a turbo button). Back when floppies were still popular he was already chasing after the fastest spinners for his personal computer, which led him down the long and winding storage road, covering enterprise storage. His current focus is on consumer processors, though he still keeps a close eye on the latest storage news. In his spare time, you’ll find Paul hanging out with his kids or indulging his love of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.&lt;/p&gt; ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <media:content type="image/jpeg" url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gNS4LfKTyMoGQ5URjvTVEj-1280-80.jpg">
                                                            <media:credit><![CDATA[null]]></media:credit>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    </media:content>
                                                    <media:thumbnail url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gNS4LfKTyMoGQ5URjvTVEj-1280-80.jpg" />
                                                                                                                                                                    <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <h2 id="intel-core-i7-8086k-40th-anniversary-model">Intel Core i7-8086K 40th Anniversary Model</h2><p>Intel's 8086, the company's first processor to use its ubiquitous x86 instruction set architecture, debuted on June 8, 1978. Forty years later and by some stroke of fortuitous timing, Intel's desktop CPU portfolio is loaded with eighth-generation Core processors. So it was only fitting, then, that after a bit of <a href="https://twitter.com/david_schor/status/953979794437410816">prodding by a well-known chip analyst</a>, Intel announced that it'd pay homage to the 8086 with a 40th-anniversary limited-edition Core i7-8086K.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1510px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.97%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gNS4LfKTyMoGQ5URjvTVEj.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gNS4LfKTyMoGQ5URjvTVEj.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1510" height="1132" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gNS4LfKTyMoGQ5URjvTVEj.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Core i7-8086K is based on the same Coffee Lake architecture as Core i7-8700K, right down to its six Hyper-Threaded cores able to work on 12 threads concurrently. But it features a higher base frequency and more aggressive Turbo Boost bins, which tell us that Intel carefully picked out the best dies to use in these chips. This is the first Intel processor to ship with a 5 GHz Turbo Boost bin, matching AMD's record with the FX-9590. And if you're only looking at clock rate, the -8086K represents a 1000x multiplication of the original 8086's 5 MHz frequency.</p><p>Incidentally, the -8086K is also Intel's first six-core processor with a 4 GHz base frequency, though that specification isn't as eye-catching.</p><p>Intel kicked off its anniversary celebration with a <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i7-8086k-40th-anniversary,37193.html">giveaway of 8086 Core i7-8086Ks</a>. If you didn't win one, you'll have to purchase the processor like we did. Your window of opportunity won't be large, though: our sources confirm a production run of just 50,000 units. We expect collector's items to sport premium pricing, and Intel doesn't disappoint in that department. As of this writing, the -8086K sells for $75 more than the once-flagship Core i7-8700K.</p><p>So what is this processor's appeal, other than the obvious nostalgia? Core i7-8086K comes from a higher-quality bin than Core i7-8700K, so enthusiasts with deep pockets can expect to receive the very best example of Coffee Lake silicon available. Of course, most folks won't consider the extra $75 worth paying for moderate gains at stock clock rates. But again, this is a limited-edition piece of hardware steeped in history.</p><h2 id="intel-core-i7-8600k">Intel Core i7-8600K</h2><p>The 6C/12T Core i7-8086K is manufactured on Intel's 14nm++ process, just like its other Coffee Lake CPUs. Like the company's Core i7-8700K, its 95W Core i7-8086K also features 13MB of L3 cache, support for up to 64GB of dual-channel memory at DDR4-2666, an unlocked multiplier to facilitate overclocking, and Intel's integrated UHD Graphics 630 engine that can boost up to 1.2 GHz. For more information about the Coffee Lake architecture, check out our <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-cpu,5252.html">Core i7-8700K review</a>.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Frequencies</strong></td><td  ><strong>Base</strong></td><td  ><strong>1</strong></td><td  ><strong>2</strong></td><td  ><strong>3</strong></td><td  ><strong>4 - 5</strong></td><td  ><strong>6</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Intel Core i7-8086K</strong></td><td  >4.0 GHz</td><td  >5.0 GHz</td><td  >4.6 GHz</td><td  >4.5 GHz</td><td  >4.4 GHz</td><td  >4.3 GHz</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Intel Core i7-8700K</strong></td><td  >3.7 GHz</td><td  >4.7 GHz</td><td  >4.6 GHz</td><td  >4.5 GHz</td><td  >4.4 GHz</td><td  >4.3 GHz</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>The -8086K's real differentiation involves its modified Turbo Boost frequencies. But in an effort to maintain a 95W thermal design power rating, Intel only increased this chip's base clock rate by 300 MHz. Intel also increased the single-core clock rate to 5 GHz. We were able to sustain 5 GHz in tasks confined to a single core, such as Cinebench and LAME. However, the busy scheduling environment in a modern desktop operating system, which finds threads migrating frequently between cores, prevented 5 GHz operation in even mainstream tests like our gaming benchmarks. In other words, don't expect to see 5 GHz very often.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Product</strong></td><td  ><strong>Core i7-8086K</strong></td><td  ><strong>Core i7-8700K</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Socket</strong></td><td  >LGA 1151v2</td><td  >LGA 1151v2</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>TDP</strong></td><td  >95W</td><td  >95W</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Architecture</strong></td><td  >Coffee Lake</td><td  >Coffee Lake</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Process</strong></td><td  >14nm++</td><td  >14nm++</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cores/Threads</strong></td><td  >6 / 12</td><td  >6 / 12</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Frequency Base / Boost</strong></td><td  >4.0 / 5.0 GHz</td><td  >3.7 / 4.7 GHz</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Memory Speed</strong></td><td  >DDR4-2966</td><td  >DDR4-2966</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Memory Controller</strong></td><td  >Dual-Channel</td><td  >Dual-Channel</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cache (L2+L3)</strong></td><td  >13.5MB</td><td  >13.5MB</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Integrated Graphics</strong></td><td  >UHD Graphics 630 (up to 1200 MHz)</td><td  >UHD Graphics 630 (up to 1200 MHz)</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>PCIe Lanes</strong></td><td  >x16 Gen3</td><td  >x16 Gen3</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Price</strong></td><td  >$425</td><td  >$359</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>We've heard reports that some motherboards don't support Intel's 5 GHz single-core Turbo Boost bin. However, updated firmware could fix that in the future. Regardless, it's a shame that Intel didn't port over Turbo Boost 3.0 technology to pin lightly-threaded tasks to the CPU's fastest core. Overclockers might have more luck coaxing higher clock rates from the -8086K: our sample easily stretched up to 5.1 GHz with a bit of extra voltage.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1510px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.97%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yK4YKhRW9FUt7ym99H2FrB.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yK4YKhRW9FUt7ym99H2FrB.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1510" height="1132" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yK4YKhRW9FUt7ym99H2FrB.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>We normally don't cover processor packaging, but it is relevant given the Core i7-8086K's status as a collector’s item. Like all of Intel's K-series SKUs, the -8086K doesn't include a bundled heat sink or fan.</p><p>The box tell us us that this is a limited-edition CPU. Intel even includes a certificate of authenticity, along with a signed statement from former CEO Brian Krzanich.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="forty-years-of-x86">Forty Years Of x86</h2><p>Compared to the 16-bit 8086, Intel's Core i7-8086K represents a quantum leap in technology. Whereas a modern CPU can spend four years in the design process, Intel brought its 8086 to market in just 18 months. Stephen Morse, then 36 years old, was the lead architect. The 8086 was originally designed to be a filler product before Intel released the 8800, but Morse designed it to be the first in a line of chips that shared a common architecture to ensure forward compatibility.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Product</strong></td><td  ><strong>Intel 8086</strong></td><td  ><strong>Core i7-8086K</strong></td><td  ><strong>Core i7-8700K</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Release Date</strong></td><td  >June 8, 1978</td><td  >June 8, 2018</td><td  >October 5, 2017</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>TDP</strong></td><td  >1W (power draw)</td><td  >95W</td><td  >95W</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cores / Threads</strong></td><td  >1 / 1</td><td  >6 / 12</td><td  >6 / 12</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Frequency Base / Boost</strong></td><td  >5 - 10 MHz (0.005 GHz)</td><td  >4.0 / 5.0 GHz</td><td  >3.7 / 4.7 GHz</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Transistors</strong></td><td  >29,000</td><td  >~3 billion</td><td  >~3 billion</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Manufacturing Process</strong></td><td  >nMOS/HMOS 3 micron (3000nm)</td><td  >CMOS 14nm++</td><td  >CMOS 14nm++</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Word Size</strong></td><td  >16-bit</td><td  >64-bit</td><td  >64-bit</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Lithography</strong></td><td  >G-Line (Mercury Arc Lamps) 436nm Wavelength</td><td  >Argon Fluoride Excismer Laser, 193nm Wavelength</td><td  >Argon Fluoride Excismer Laser, 193nm Wavelength</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Die Size</strong></td><td  >33mm2</td><td  >149mm2</td><td  >149mm2</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Minimum Feature Size</strong></td><td  >3.2 Microns (3200nm)</td><td  >8nm</td><td  >8nm</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Wafer Diameter</strong></td><td  >4 inches</td><td  >12 inches</td><td  >12 inches</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Memory Support</strong></td><td  >1MB</td><td  >64GB</td><td  >64GB</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Memory Bus Speed</strong></td><td  >4.77 MHz</td><td  >2966 MHz</td><td  >2966 MHz</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Integrated Graphics</strong></td><td  >None</td><td  >UHD Graphics 630</td><td  >UHD Graphics 630</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Socket</strong></td><td  >40-pin</td><td  >LGA 1151v2</td><td  >LGA 1151v2</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Price</strong></td><td  >$86.65 (1978) $330 adjusted for inflation</td><td  >$425</td><td  >$359</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>And thus, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86">x86 instruction set architecture</a> was born. Over the course of 40 years, Intel continually <a href="https://newsroom.intel.com/editorials/x86-approaching-40-still-going-strong/">enhanced the x86 ISA</a>, adding more than 3500 new instructions like MMX, SSE, TSX, and three flavors of AVX, among many others. Amazingly, the 64-bit Core i7-8086K is capable of running original 16-bit 8086 code. That's a testament to the x86 instruction set's longevity.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1510px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.97%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FviQd7asC8WWKSuKG2FMva.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FviQd7asC8WWKSuKG2FMva.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1510" height="1132" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FviQd7asC8WWKSuKG2FMva.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The original 8086 was fabbed on a 3200nm nMOS process using mercury arc lamps. Meanwhile, 40 years later, Intel is on its third-gen 14nm CMOS process that's manufactured with argon fluoride exerciser lasers.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:406px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:93.84%;"><img id="" name="" alt="8086 Die" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7z6HBdCNjTtTKV6Ev3GpuE.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7z6HBdCNjTtTKV6Ev3GpuE.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="406" height="381" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7z6HBdCNjTtTKV6Ev3GpuE.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div><figcaption itemprop="caption description" class="pull-"><span class="caption-text">8086 Die </span></figcaption></figure><p>Transistor measurements are no longer based strictly on feature sizes, but we can derive some basic comparative metrics. Die sizes have increased from the 8086's 33mm<sup>2</sup> to the -8086K's 149mm<sup>2</sup>, and transistor counts are up from 29,000 to ~3,000,000,000 per processor, respectively. That means the original 8086 featured 879 transistors per square millimeter, while Core i7-8086K comes with 20,134,228 transistors per square millimeter for an astounding 22,905x density increase.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1510px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:66.89%;"><img id="" name="" alt="Coffee Lake Die" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7KmmRcvrdb62Yk3Cw69Qfe.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7KmmRcvrdb62Yk3Cw69Qfe.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1510" height="1010" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7KmmRcvrdb62Yk3Cw69Qfe.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div><figcaption itemprop="caption description" class="pull-"><span class="caption-text">Coffee Lake Die </span></figcaption></figure><p>Interfaces have also changed as Intel added more cores, cache, new buses, expanded memory support, and on-die graphics. The original 8086 dropped into a 40-pin quasi-PGA interface, whereas the eighth-generation Core processors employ an LGA 1151v2 socket that boasts 1151 pins. If we widen the scope to Intel's 28-core enterprise behemoths, some interfaces pack a whopping 4637 pins.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="silicon-lottery-overclocking-amp-test-setup">Silicon Lottery, Overclocking & Test Setup</h2><p>Alternately, <a href="https://siliconlottery.com/">Silicon Lottery</a> procures batches of processors and delids them to replace Intel's thermal paste with liquid metal Thermal Grizzly Condoctonaut. According to the company, this reduces operating temperatures by 15°C to 25°C, depending on the workload. The improved thermal transfer material helps facilitate more aggressive overclocks. Silicon Lottery sells the modified processors at a premium price, and with a one-year warranty (rather than Intel's standard three-year coverage).</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  colspan="4"><strong>Core i7-8700K - December 2017</strong></td><td  colspan="4"><strong>Core i7-8700K - June 2018</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Clock</strong></td><td  ><strong>Vcore</strong></td><td  ><strong>AVX2</strong></td><td  ><strong>Percentile</strong></td><td  ><strong>Clock</strong></td><td  ><strong>Vcore</strong></td><td  ><strong>AVX2</strong></td><td  ><strong>Percentile</strong></td></tr><tr><td  >4.9 GHz</td><td  >1.387</td><td  >-2</td><td  >Top 99%</td><td  >4.9 GHz</td><td  >1.385</td><td  >-2</td><td  >Top 99%</td></tr><tr><td  >5.0 GHz</td><td  >1.4</td><td  >-2</td><td  >Top 72%</td><td  >5.0 GHz</td><td  >1.4</td><td  >-2</td><td  >Top 86%</td></tr><tr><td  >5.1 GHz</td><td  >1.412</td><td  >-2</td><td  >Top 43%</td><td  >5.1 GHz</td><td  >1.41</td><td  >-2</td><td  >Top 50%</td></tr><tr><td  >5.2 GHz</td><td  >1.425</td><td  >-2</td><td  >Top 16%</td><td  >5.2 GHz</td><td  >1.425</td><td  >-2</td><td  >Top 17%</td></tr><tr><td  >5.3 GHz</td><td  >1.437</td><td  >-2</td><td  >Top 3%</td><td  >5.3 GHz</td><td  >-</td><td  >-</td><td  >-</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>Silicon Lottery compiles statistics about the samples it modifies and shares them publicly, giving us a reasonable gauge of what's coming out of Intel's foundries. Some enthusiasts speculate that reserving the highest-quality silicon for Core i7-8086K would hurt the chances of scoring a higher-clocking -8700K. But as we can see, the percentage of -8700Ks able to hit anywhere from 5 to 5.2 GHz actually increased during the period of time we would have expected Intel to set aside top-binned dies for its -8086K. Then again, it looks like samples able to hit 5.3 GHz disappeared entirely, possibly representing those precious -8086K-capable dies.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  colspan="4"><strong>Core i7-8086K - June 2018</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Clock</strong></td><td  ><strong>Vcore</strong></td><td  ><strong>AVX2</strong></td><td  ><strong>Percentile</strong></td></tr><tr><td  >5.0 GHz</td><td  >1.4</td><td  >-2</td><td  >Top 100%</td></tr><tr><td  >5.1 GHz</td><td  >1.41</td><td  >-2</td><td  >Top 92%</td></tr><tr><td  >5.2 GHz</td><td  >1.425</td><td  >-2</td><td  >Top 60%</td></tr><tr><td  >5.3 GHz</td><td  >1.435</td><td  >-2</td><td  >Top 14%</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>Silicon Lottery also shares statistics on the Core i7-8086K, and its probability of receiving top silicon is markedly better than what we see from the latest round of Core i7-8700K data. Nearly all of the company's -8086Ks reach 5 GHz, and the top 14% are capable of reaching 5.3 GHz.</p><p>Our own Core i7-8086K achieved 5.1 GHz with a 1.35V Vcore and default load line calibration settings. In addition, we adjusted our AVX offset by -1 and saw a peak temperature of 86°C during AVX-heavy workloads using Corsair's beefy H115i closed-loop cooler. Although we successfully dialed in DDR4-3466 rates with 14-14-14-24 timings, we feel we could have pushed even higher with more time for tuning.</p><p>Instead of splurging on a Core i7-8086K, you could always purchase a modified Core i7-8700K from Silicon Lottery capable of hitting the same 5.1 GHz that we achieved. Unfortunately, <a href="https://siliconlottery.com/collections/coffeelake">those models sell for $479</a>, making the -8086K's $425 price tag attractive in comparison. If you're chasing the highest overclock possible, the company does sell a Core i7-8086K capable of 5.3 GHz for $849. As with all Silicon Lottery chips, however, you lose two years of warranty coverage in the exchange. </p><h2 id="comparison-products-2">Comparison Products </h2>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="a5d63b34-468d-4f2d-8d1a-3e5f8bf6d6fe">            <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-8700-Desktop-Processor-BX80684i78700/dp/B07598HLB4?ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Core i7-8700" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:113.36%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2MbHEgWse822su7gxLadzY.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i7-8700 (8th Gen)</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="e3441ee6-54f3-4972-82f2-9ea74550af5a">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/Intel-BX80684I78700K-Core-i7-8700K-Processor/dp/B07598VZR8/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Core i7-8700K" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:122.29%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/j7KjsgaP5iuRZ7RRqGYQTc.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i7-8700K</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="c45931a0-40e6-460f-a785-2a8ec6b9ec31">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Desktop-Processor-i7-7700K-BX80677I77700K/dp/B01MXSI216/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Core i7-7700K" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:116.01%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HQW27ndzgmBQPigVEZcckG.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i7-7700K</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div><h2 id="test-systems">Test Systems</h2><p>Like many other vendors, MSI motherboards feature a default Enhanced Turbo feature that allows the processor to run at its maximum Turbo Boost bin on all cores, at all times. For the Core i7-8086K, you're looking at 5 GHz across all six cores.</p><p>This setting modifies the CPU's clock rate and voltage to deliver higher performance, which is basically factory-sanctioned overclocking. Again, MSI enables it by default in the BIOS, similar to most of the competition. But performance, power consumption, and heat are all affected when it's on. We manually disable the feature for our stock CPU testing to best reflect Intel's specifications.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  colspan="2"><strong>Test System & Configuration</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Hardware</strong></td><td  ><strong><strong>AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)</strong></strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700, Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600X, Ryzen 5 2600 MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466<strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):</strong>Intel Core i7-8086K, Core i7-8700K, Core i5-8600K, Core i5-8400, Core i7-8700MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466<strong>All</strong> EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703 - All Spectre and Meltdown mitigations</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cooling</strong></td><td  >Corsair H115iIntel stock thermal solution (Core i7-8700)</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="vrmark-3dmark-amp-aots-escalation-2">VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation</h2><h2 id="vrmark-amp-3dmark">VRMark & 3DMark </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5xaMxzvHv97sY3NhprZjBJ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WxtUqMiSGu2zVhDJ2vUy45.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HajByWabAxxGtftq8KvTgd.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Out of the box, Core i7-8086K effectively tied Intel's Core i7-8700K in the DX12 CPU benchmark. But its higher overclocked frequency outstripped the tuned -8700K by a decent margin. Both processors traded places in the DX11 test, though again, overclocking propelled Core i7-8086K past the -8700K.</p><p>VRMark found the -8086K and -8700K offering virtually the same performance at stock and overclocked settings. The Core i5-8600K and -8400 both beat the Core i7 models though, suggesting that this benchmark rewards configurations without simultaneous multi-threading technology exposing logical cores. </p><h2 id="ashes-of-the-singularity-escalation-2">Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YgFiTWN73MPFGweP34msxS.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/G2qTyQqWgtk5rJvLnCYnqN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6m9AiLK3KF6jaA3v7R8Gv8.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>At stock and overclocked settings, Core i7-8086K and the Core i7-8700K performed almost identically in <em>Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</em>.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-amp-ai-dawn-of-war-iii-2">Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III</h2><h2 id="civilization-vi-ai-test-2">Civilization VI AI Test</h2><p><em>Civilization's </em><span>AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance.</span></p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:711px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:75.11%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ScZTMWXExEgpM6yQAxTEMo.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ScZTMWXExEgpM6yQAxTEMo.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="711" height="534" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ScZTMWXExEgpM6yQAxTEMo.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>At stock settings, the Core i7-8086K surprisingly trailed Core i7-8700K and -8700, though just barely. Overclocking provides a minuscule boost over the other tuned Intel processors.</p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-test-2">Civilization VI Graphics Test</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/y7ZmpzN9HsJbRwaUgrgwK7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/bjd4Z89DbqohS5LLtZeXLf.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/p6HAHP6Df4sStjTnwGHWMn.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Core i5-8600K dominated at both stock and overclocked settings, which tells us that this benchmark prefers physical cores over logical resources. The overclocked Core i7-8086K fell next in line with a lead over competing Core i7 and Ryzen 7 models. However, it trailed the -8700 by 1 FPS on average at stock settings.</p><h2 id="warhammer-40-000-dawn-of-war-iii-2">Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7iyMEmV4mwmRPXixCTL34b.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RBxFxPgMDBzag4H578hTyT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/r6Hh6dbgGPGBoRawjDV6sE.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Dawn of War</em> responds well to Intel's high clock rates, so it was no surprise to find overclocked Coffee Lake-based CPUs at the top of our chart.</p><p>Although the overclocked Core i7-8086K landed in first place, it's clear that the outcome in <em>Dawn of War III</em> was limited by graphics performance up top.</p><p>A stock Core i7-8086K beat the -8700K. But the difference between them was so small that the -8086K's 300 MHz peak Turbo Boost advantage didn't seem to help much.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="far-cry-primal-gta-v-amp-hitman">Far Cry Primal, GTA: V & Hitman</h2><h2 id="far-cry-primal">Far Cry Primal</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PPmzvwSetJ4BvqE2Y5eriY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eyyY9SLBydGnsohaf2YXVK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DNZH2ULc3oiNjcQRCfvs9U.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Tuning provided small average frame rate boosts to Intel's six-core Coffee Lake-based CPUs. Meanwhile, Core i7-8086K only offered a slight advantage versus the less expensive eighth-gen Core i7s. </p><h2 id="grand-theft-auto-v-2">Grand Theft Auto V</h2><p><em>Grand Theft Auto V</em><span> </span>favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vvKFBATDART93bGntHZfM6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/v9GE5kfxsnK3vAr6HPXi28.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5DkFnXiACCven6A6Yk8pVe.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The stock and overclocked Core i7-8086K yielded a small advantage over the Core i7-8700K.</p><h2 id="hitman-2">Hitman </h2><p>Our <em>Hitman</em> benchmark was rendered almost useless by a patch that imposed a 90 FPS cap on performance. A few weeks ago, though, a subsequent update restored our <em>Hitman </em>test to its prior glory.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/aFFwdp88rVaGtrMAoT6ZAS.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WpLpTRL5zuFVvCF2vvAeh6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SMkCG676yxZcN5RxBPdwY5.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>With the frame cap removed, Intel's overclocked processors hit a performance ceiling that may be imposed by available graphics horsepower.</p><p>Shifting focus to the stock configurations, Intel's six-core CPUs were clearly faster than last generation's quad-core flagship.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="shadow-of-war-amp-project-cars-2-2">Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2</h2><h2 id="middle-earth-shadow-of-war-2">Middle-earth: Shadow Of War</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/npXBMHrmKrZvijozNfC2rW.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7ihkTrKazQQoXDYrwTgLY7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gSNbi425cFUpWdNv6cEgVM.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Not all games respond to increased host processing resources; some of them are wholly limited by available graphics horsepower. <em>Middle-earth: Shadow of War</em> is definitely one of those graphics-bound titles, demonstrating a 4.5 FPS average variance from the slowest sample in our pool to the fastest. As a result, it was no surprise to see Core i7-8086K and -8700K tied.</p><h2 id="project-cars-2-2">Project CARS 2</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/x2emu5MRshVmwF29gNbXW6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NMUmYuqo7FkXBFLcc6oMwh.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/E5uTa3yfpo7VrRVoo9tS3a.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Project CARS 2</em> is purportedly optimized for threading. However, our 6C/6T Core i5-8600K beat the overclocked 8C/16T Ryzen 7 2700X, so it's clear that parallelism isn't the most influential factor in defining this game's performance.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="office-amp-productivity-2">Office & Productivity</h2><h2 id="adobe-creative-cloud-2">Adobe Creative Cloud</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/fdqoxJQpFoCv5wWcUJY8PD.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/rirgzDKTrUi44Sc6op7msT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RQmGTyYSjh5WqotHBb7Vu9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/JYsq7LqR2DBMN7iarjx7a6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RQJL4f5RbAGP3f6uuqudAK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wRUQDtqHfyRidTDdoTpTw9.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>At stock settings, Core i7-8086K offered minimal improvement over the Core i7-8700K in our overall Adobe Creative Cloud score. Even though this suite has a few parallelized workloads, the final score is heavily influenced by the lightly-threaded tasks common in most desktop applications. So, it wasn't surprising to see the Core i7-8086K's superior overclock beat the tuned -8700K by 6.5%.</p><h2 id="web-browser-2">Web Browser</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GECqG3DJQj4BGeYdZNRFn7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CJjH5QE9Bwo4QbmVmtmSFW.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SD4h2HNEKEJUxqCUKhZL5n.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. Core i7-8086K trailed the -8700K in stock form, though overclocking changed the story.</p><p>The MotionMark benchmarks, which emphasize graphics (rather than JavaScript), are exceedingly sensitive to CPU clock rates. Yet, Intel's stock Core i7-8086K trailed the -8700K again, reinforcing our opinion that some motherboard firmware versions aren't fully optimized to exploit the 5 GHz single-core Turbo Boost bin.</p><h2 id="productivity-2">Productivity</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SKaZhJcSLhr8sPUk7ZjUkK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KD9NEWTc4yNQ4jhxtg2EMb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sKvTMpyi8kfTWLkfWBGmrG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/JQvCkizAR8cmR7XdeiekzC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UeyufAM3FR6F5bYVpQmfk3.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. Core i7-8086K exploited its clock rate advantage in stock and overclocked trim to provide snappy performance.</p><p>Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. Core i7-8700 beat the -8086K by a hair; however, its locked multiplier prevents it from vying for chart-topping performance. Core i7-8086K posted a lead at stock frequencies during the writing benchmark, reinforcing that win after overclocking.</p><p>The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, so it's no surprise the tuned Ryzen 7 processors lead by a large margin. The overclocked Core i7-8086K fared best among Intel's CPUs, but there's no substitute for core/thread count in this workload. </p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="rendering-encoding-amp-compression-2">Rendering, Encoding & Compression</h2><h2 id="rendering-2">Rendering</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UbQeFuhsqiSfAfjV79udiK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3kQfEEysSBjKDWyccLppgN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ozp6fGNKEmUSdEUBzK4m8B.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/e4JQh6oG2n7BWT7uaei7Zo.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YuHJtBTMcT8kFJdknwnWUU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/b6noq8w8SGnaNfahEzDFa6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QDFUzUtByY6dRqHurKMaG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Ti8hFXEjE6rojZzHPnfffT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/9PnRNeqXerhEAAiHSryxXV.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Threaded workloads remain an uncontested strength of AMD's Zen-based processors and their hefty core counts. But tasks that are also affected by memory performance, such as Blender, allow Core i7 to claim a lead. The multi-core Cinebench and POV-Ray tests are dominated by the Ryzen line-up.</p><p>At stock settings, Core i7-8086K lead the -8700K in our single-core POV-Ray and Cinebench benchmarks. Overclocking opened up  a much wider gap between the two CPUs.</p><h2 id="encoding-amp-compression-2">Encoding & Compression </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Sd3uPRXjUceivsmvBCG89n.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wi7MTphzYfHMF4dLfPYG5D.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZwAQKN4xQFtLNb9zoPgiGH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mMyEFGa2HaLrYt52rwk9q3.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MWoEF7nFLDM2MhyKYqFvk7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jJ2fQRm83BRkRcb2SZH3Go.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cKni5D9S3b8dpnZZGbRFLe.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>LAME is a single-threaded workload that typically illustrates the advantage of higher clock rates and IPC throughput. Not surprisingly, then, Core i7-8086K's frequency advantage lead to a win.   </p><p>Our threaded compression and decompression tests work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. Thus, we found that performance scaled according to core/thread count.</p><p>y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi using AVX instructions, kept itself isolated to one core during our single-threaded test, allowing the Core i7-8086K to flaunt its higher frequency relative to the -8700K. Conversely, the multi-threaded y-cruncher test reminded us that both processors have the same multi-core Turbo Boost frequencies.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="final-analysis">Final Analysis</h2><p>Core i7-8086K's higher base and single-core Turbo Boost frequencies delivered small speed-ups throughout our test suite. But because of Windows' busy nature, those gains were somewhat unpredictable. Although the -8086K rarely stayed in its single-core Turbo Boost bin for long, the same can be said for most CPUs. Regardless, Core i7-8086K earns recognition for becoming the fastest gaming processor on the market, if only just barely.</p><p>Our charts below plot gaming performance with a geometric mean of the 99<sup>th</sup> percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness) converted into a frame-per-second measurement. We also have price-to-performance charts that get split up to include the CPUs-only, plus extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jwPkwZUnzAMEqXknk62S7Z.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7tEr9E5bJmzXXyDsd2wuDf.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8zzXYz2bv4CJR59mCEgsK9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YSPwXK8bFFFwh7sFDhJ2XT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cau935DSVbdSQfvBRtprEJ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/thZZuMkCFTCRAt7fPxD8B6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4S652R834fsSfdzKJBZKAR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uPZv6SFwB44UubmDxRw3TL.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>If you're only looking to use Core i7-8086K at its stock settings, the processor provides nearly the same gaming experience as the Core i7-8700K at 4.9 GHz. Its advantage is minor at 1920x1080, and it'll shrink at higher resolutions. Granted, overclocking is one of the -8086K's selling points. But the extra 200 MHz you get compared to our -8700K just doesn't justify a $75-higher price tag. And as with all K-series SKUs, you need to buy your own cooler and 300-series motherboard.</p><p>We see similar trends throughout our application tests: Core i7-8086K is strikingly similar to the -8700K, and overclocking opens a slight advantage due to our sample's increased headroom. It's only a shame that Intel didn't have the margins to also improve Core i7-8086K's multi-core Turbo Boost frequencies. Such a move would have yielded bigger gains across the board.</p><p>You could always purchase a delidded Core i7-8700K, or do the risky work yourself, to match the -8086K's overclocking potential. But if you go the Silicon Lottery route, expect to pay even more than a brand new Core i7-8086K costs and lose two years of warranty coverage.</p><p>Core i7-8086K is probably overkill for most of our readers. Both Intel and AMD have far more economical options that provide similar performance through our benchmark suite. Given the limited supply of Core i7-8086Ks, however, we don't expect them to be available for long, and competitive positioning probably isn't the top priority for this CPU's target market.</p><p>In light of the anecdotal evidence we've heard from Silicon Lottery, you can rest assured that the -8086K represents Intel's very best Coffee Lake silicon. There are those among us who always seek out the best performance possible, regardless of price. If that describes you, then Core i7-8086K is the fastest gaming chip out there. Just be aware that you're paying dearly for a bit of overclocking headroom.</p><p>Moderate gains at stock clock rates mean Core i7-8086K isn't worthwhile for most of Intel's customers. But if you're willing to pay a premium for a piece of history that just so happens to perform well, the -8086K is a cool, enthusiast-oriented option.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ Intel Core i7-8700 Review: Stock Cooler Falls Flat ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-8700-cpu-review,5638.html</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ Intel's Core i7-8700 sports all of the goodness expected from its Coffee Lake architecture. However, the bundled cooler proves insufficient under taxing workloads. ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">MFk5YJ6csdyi57qrLRMs43</guid>
                                                                                                <enclosure url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NDEcMPLn9dLq3UHbvGCiR9-1280-80.jpg" type="image/jpeg" length="0"></enclosure>
                                                                        <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                <updated>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:30:17 +0000</updated>
                                                                                                                                            <category><![CDATA[CPUs]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[PC Components]]></category>
                                                                                                <author><![CDATA[ palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) ]]></author>                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ Paul Alcorn ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                    <dc:source><![CDATA[ https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RZRmFeQfPy3etHjBQitbGW.jpeg ]]></dc:source>
                                                                <dc:description><![CDATA[ &lt;p&gt;As a teenager, Paul scraped up enough money to buy a 486-powered PC with a turbo button (yes, a turbo button). Back when floppies were still popular he was already chasing after the fastest spinners for his personal computer, which led him down the long and winding storage road, covering enterprise storage. His current focus is on consumer processors, though he still keeps a close eye on the latest storage news. In his spare time, you’ll find Paul hanging out with his kids or indulging his love of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.&lt;/p&gt; ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <media:content type="image/jpeg" url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NDEcMPLn9dLq3UHbvGCiR9-1280-80.jpg">
                                                            <media:credit><![CDATA[null]]></media:credit>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    </media:content>
                                                    <media:thumbnail url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NDEcMPLn9dLq3UHbvGCiR9-1280-80.jpg" />
                                                                                                                                                                    <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <h2 id="the-core-i7-8700-review">The Core i7-8700 Review</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1280px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:113.36%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2MbHEgWse822su7gxLadzY.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2MbHEgWse822su7gxLadzY.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1280" height="1451" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2MbHEgWse822su7gxLadzY.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Intel's Core i7-8700 packs all of the Coffee Lake architecture's goodness into a 65W envelope, including six Hyper-Threaded cores, the benefits of 14nm++ manufacturing, and higher Turbo Boost clock rates than previous-generation CPUs. Although it's handicapped somewhat by a locked ratio multiplier, stymieing enthusiasts looking for a 5 GHz+ overclock, Core i7-8700 does feature operating frequencies that come close to the flagship -8700K. As a result, its performance is often similar in real-world tasks. And yet, the vanilla -8700 costs $50 less. That's a win if you weren't planning to overclock anyway.</p><p>Great benchmark results and an attractive price also put Core i7-8700 up against AMD's revamped Ryzen 7 line-up. Specifically, it's forced to contend with Ryzen 7 2700's eight cores, 16 threads, unlocked multiplier, affordable motherboard support, and capable cooler. Particularly on that last point, Intel's solution is severely deficient.</p><p>You see, Intel's thermal design power specification applies to the CPU's base frequency. But its processors exceed that rating when they jump to higher Turbo Boost bins. We found that the Core i7-8700 can overwhelm Intel's bundled heat sink and fan during certain heavily-threaded workloads, negatively affecting performance. You'll have to purchase a better thermal solution for any chance at realizing Core i7-8700's highest Turbo Boost frequencies. Naturally, the CPU loses some of its luster as a result.</p><h2 id="intel-core-i7-8700">Intel Core i7-8700</h2><p>Core i7-8700 may be destined to live <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-cpu,5252.html">in the -8700K's shadow</a>. But again, it does feature the same complement of six cores, 12MB of L3 cache, and DDR4-2666-capable memory controller. Like all of Intel's Core i7, i5, and i3 models, the i7-8700 comes with an integrated UHD Graphics 630 engine that gives Intel a leg up over competing Ryzen 7 and 5 processors without any on-die graphics.</p><p>Unfortunately, due to Coffee Lake's lack of backward compatibility, <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-cpu,5252-2.html">you do need a 300-series motherboard</a> if you're upgrading from an older platform.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ></td><td  ><strong>IntelCore i7-8700K</strong></td><td  ><strong>IntelCore i7-8700</strong></td><td  ><strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700X</strong></td><td  ><strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700</strong></td><td  ><strong>AMD Ryzen 5 2600X</strong></td><td  ><strong>Intel Core i5-8600K</strong></td><td  ><strong>AMD Ryzen 5 2600</strong></td><td  ><strong>Intel Core i5-8400</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>MSRP</strong></td><td  >$359</td><td  >$303</td><td  >$329</td><td  >$299</td><td  >$229</td><td  >$257</td><td  >$199</td><td  >$182</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Process</strong></td><td  >14nm++</td><td  >14nm++</td><td  >GloFo 12nm LP</td><td  >GloFo 12nm LP</td><td  >GloFo 12nm LP</td><td  >14nm++</td><td  >GloFo 12nm LP</td><td  >14nm++</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cores/Threads</strong></td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >8/16</td><td  >8/16</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/6</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/6</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>TDP</strong></td><td  >95W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >105W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >65W</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Base Freq. (GHz)</strong></td><td  >3.7</td><td  >3.2</td><td  >3.7</td><td  >3.2</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.4</td><td  >2.8</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)</strong></td><td  >4.7</td><td  >4.6</td><td  >4.3</td><td  >4.1</td><td  >4.2</td><td  >4.3</td><td  >3.9</td><td  >4.0</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cache (L3)</strong></td><td  >12MB</td><td  >12MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >9MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >9MB</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Unlocked Multiplier</strong></td><td  >Yes</td><td  >No</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >No</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Integrated Graphics</strong></td><td  >UHD Graphics 630 (1200 MHz)</td><td  >UHD Graphics 630 (1200 MHz)</td><td  >No</td><td  >No</td><td  >No</td><td  >UHD Graphics 630 (1150 MHz)</td><td  >No</td><td  >UHD Graphics 630 (1150 MHz)</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cooler</strong></td><td  >No</td><td  >Intel Stock</td><td  >105W Wraith Prism (LED)</td><td  >95W Wraith Spire (LED)</td><td  >95W Wraith Spire</td><td  >No</td><td  >65W Wraith Stealth</td><td  >Intel Stock</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>Intel is infamous for aggressively segmenting its portfolio, meaning it trims frequencies, only makes overclocking available on premium models, turns Hyper-Threading on and off, and disables cores to create lower-priced models. Of course, the company did this with its seventh-gen Core CPUs, too. The Core i7-7700 was multiplier-locked, while the -7700K catered to enthusiasts. But Intel capped the -7700's top Turbo Boost bin at a mere 4.2 GHz. Core i7-8700 isn't as constrained. Its four-core ceiling is 4.4 GHz, while six active cores reach up to 4.3 GHz, just like Core i7-8700K. In most workloads, the 500 MHz base frequency difference between Core i7-8700 and -8700K quickly disappears as Turbo Boost kicks in.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Frequencies</strong></td><td  ><strong>Base</strong></td><td  ><strong>1</strong></td><td  ><strong>2</strong></td><td  ><strong>4</strong></td><td  ><strong>6</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Intel Core i7-8700K</strong></td><td  >3.7 GHz</td><td  >4.7 GHz</td><td  >4.6 GHz</td><td  >4.4 GHz</td><td  >4.3 GHz</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Intel Core i7-8700</strong></td><td  >3.2 GHz</td><td  >4.6 GHz</td><td  >4.5 GHz</td><td  >4.4 GHz</td><td  >4.3 GHz</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Intel Core i7-7700K </strong></td><td  >4.2 GHz</td><td  >4.5 GHz</td><td  >4.4 GHz</td><td  >4.4 GHz</td><td  >-</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Intel Core i7-7700</strong></td><td  >3.6 GHz</td><td  >4.2 GHz</td><td  >4.1 GHz</td><td  >4.0 GHz</td><td  >-</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="the-stock-cooler-dilemma-amp-test-setup">The Stock Cooler Dilemma & Test Setup</h2><h2 id="the-stock-cooler-dilemma">The Stock Cooler Dilemma</h2><p>Intel ships its multiplier-locked CPUs with basic thermal solutions. Although they are notoriously flimsy and usually pretty noisy, they've proven sufficient for cooling previous-generation models. That changes with Core i7-8700.</p><p>In the not-too-distant past, Intel's stock heat sink employed a copper core. More recently, however, the company switched to all-aluminum designs. That means Core i7-8700 comes with the same cooler as quad-core Kaby Lake-based Core i5s.</p><p>Frankly, we're surprised that Intel carried over the same heat sinks from those seventh-generation Core CPUs. Despite the -8700's 65W TDP, it's still based on a notably more complex die.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1510px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.97%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XZ7NVUwa8kQLEGCqnxfxqA.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XZ7NVUwa8kQLEGCqnxfxqA.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1510" height="1132" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XZ7NVUwa8kQLEGCqnxfxqA.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>On paper, the -8700's 65W TDP fits nicely within the low-profile cooler's 73W rating. But remember that Intel specs the CPU's thermal design power according to its base frequency. Its chips actually exceed the TDP when they dynamically increase voltage and frequency through their Turbo Boost algorithms. As noted on <a href="https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html">Intel's Turbo Boost 2.0</a> informational page:</p><p>Note: Intel Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows the processor to operate at a power level that is higher than its TDP configuration and data sheet specified power for short durations to maximize performance.</p><p>According to our measurements, Core i7-8700 peaks at up to 126W during taxing all-core workloads. With that data in-hand, the stock cooler does appear insufficient. </p><p>While Intel guarantees base frequencies during normal operation, the company doesn't make promises about Turbo Boost clock rates because its processors only shift to higher P-states (pre-defined frequencies and voltages) when they're running below certain temperature, voltage, power, and current limits. Above them, the opportunistic algorithms are reigned in to keep the CPU in-spec.</p><p>As a general rule, Turbo Boost targets lower frequency bins as more cores become active. Intel does still advertise its maximum single-core clock rates, but it no longer divulges the multi-core clock rates (even though you can expose them through the company's XTU software).</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Frequencies</strong></td><td  ><strong>Base</strong></td><td  ><strong>1</strong></td><td  ><strong>2</strong></td><td  ><strong>4</strong></td><td  ><strong>6</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Intel Core i7-8700K</strong></td><td  >3.7 GHz</td><td  >4.7 GHz</td><td  >4.6 GHz</td><td  >4.4 GHz</td><td  >4.3 GHz</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Intel Core i7-8700</strong></td><td  >3.2 GHz</td><td  >4.6 GHz</td><td  >4.5 GHz</td><td  >4.4 GHz</td><td  >4.3 GHz</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>We've seen lots of speculation that Intel stopped disclosing multi-core Turbo Boost frequencies with Coffee Lake-based processors because its stock heat sink and fan couldn't fully facilitate those clock rates. Sure enough, a quick online search reveals several reports from owners claiming that their Core i7-8700s hit the maximum safe temperature of 100<strong>°</strong>C (TJ Max) during extended workloads. Once the processor reaches TJ Max, it throttles back voltage and frequency (along with power and heat) as a protection mechanism. Of course, throttling also results in lower performance.</p><h2 id="measuring-the-impact">Measuring The Impact</h2><p>To investigate the claims, we observed a Core i7-8700 and its stock cooler during our x265 HandBrake benchmark. This real-world application is optimized to utilize all available cores. Moreover, it employs AVX instructions, which tend to increase power consumption considerably. We opened AIDA's system stability test window to monitor our -8700 during the workload.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/qarQKyPomUTg6836YDEBQh.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/h9V9io7hjyR8rg2WJoCi3D.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>As you can see in the second slide, Intel's cooler was quickly overwhelmed, causing the processor to repeatedly bounce off of its 100<strong>°</strong>C temperature limit and throttle performance to protect itself (charted in red in the lower window). </p><p>With the bundled fan manually set to 100% duty cycle, we logged frequency throughout our test run (first album image). Even with the thermal solution working as hard as possible, the -8700 regularly throttled back from its 4.3 GHz all-core bin into lower ranges.</p><p>We also monitored VRM temperature during the test to ensure our motherboard's power delivery subsystem wasn't responsible for the throttling. Those measurements landed within the range we expected.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uaAGfHGLw8LmgZCU96pr3h.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SU6xH8AVCgJvkL9xwZsJgn.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Next, we ran the same test using a beefy Corsair Hydro Series H115i "Extreme Performance" all-in-one liquid-cooler. Manually cranking the two 140mm fans and pump up to 100% helped ensure that thermal output had no impact on our test results.</p><p>The difference is night and day. Intel's Core i7-8700 never exceeded 67<strong>°</strong>C, and the processor's frequency remained at a pleasingly-constant 4.3 GHz (though we did notice a few spikes higher during brief periods of lighter utilization). AIDA's system monitor confirmed that the CPU didn't throttle. Again, we see that our motherboard's power delivery subsystem satisfied the Core i7-8700's power and current requirements.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1113px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.84%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iE7DrQhCRrFxt9EpU7rpg7.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iE7DrQhCRrFxt9EpU7rpg7.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1113" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iE7DrQhCRrFxt9EpU7rpg7.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Comparing the difference between Intel's stock cooler (HS&F) and the all-in-one makes it clear that thermals clearly affect the -8700's performance. Turbo Boost is clearly designed to minimize the impact of thermal throttling: we only observe a 72-second delta over the course of our ~35-minute test.</p><p>A mere 3.4% separating those results may seem insignificant, but remember that we tested these configurations on an open test bench. A closed case would change the outcome almost assuredly. Also, we benchmarked at maximum fan settings, generating quite a bit of noise. It's far more common to use the motherboard's default fan curve, or to dial in an optimized fan profile that ramps up gradually. Unfortunately, those algorithms don't respond to control temperature fast enough to mitigate wild spikes and dips. As a result of the normal delay in fan speed adjustments, plus the less-than-ideal airflow in most PC cases, you could see larger slow-downs than what we recorded from a best-case test environment. This doesn't bode well for builders working with small form factors.</p><p>We did experiment with various thermal compounds between the stock cooler and heat spreader, but they didn't help much. Thus, we pin the negative outcome of our experimentation on Intel's paltry heat sink and fan combination.</p><p>Bear in mind that our benchmarks are run with the stock cooler and Corsair's all-in-one to highlight the difference in thermal performance. Some tests are short, while others take longer to complete. Some are single-threaded, while other are fully parallelized. Thus, the effects of heat influence each result in a unique way. As noted, we kept the fan speed at maximum and tested on an open-air bench, so our results represent a best-case scenario for Intel's stock cooler.</p><h2 id="comparison-products-3">Comparison Products </h2>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="59b4646b-b972-46e2-bb57-d9d1783c4b1e">            <a href="http://www.tkqlhce.com/click-8900246-12920453?sid=tomshardware-&url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117824" data-model-name="Core i5-8400" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:108.91%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Mbp7fKeJrnqTAagSTBP399.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i5-8400</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="c9731c4d-2a95-4963-8301-45bb0d40da2b">            <a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117825" data-model-name="Core i5-8600K" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:120.30%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ovaurhrrbXkvAC9XyKvdJU.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i5-8600K</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="5c31c6c2-1253-41d1-9061-0aecff1ca373">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/Intel-BX80677I77700-Processor-Frequency-Generation/dp/B01N0L41N7/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Core i7-7700" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:100.00%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BQZAGGZvsQUun8kc84LKzK.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i7-7700</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div><h2 id="test-systems-2">Test Systems</h2><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  colspan="2"><strong>Test System & Configuration</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Hardware</strong></td><td  ><strong><strong>AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)</strong></strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700, Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600X, Ryzen 5 2600 MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466<strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):</strong>Intel Core i7-8700K, Core i5-8600K, Core i5-8400, Core i7-8700MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466<strong>All</strong> EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703 - All Spectre and Meltdown mitigations</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cooling</strong></td><td  >Corsair H115iIntel stock thermal solution (Core i7-8700)</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="vrmark-3dmark-amp-aots-escalation-3">VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation</h2><h2 id="vrmark-amp-3dmark-2">VRMark & 3DMark </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VEKniHxU7qtwWMPFFmmv7e.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GvBapntFe8zDm63qp4ozsa.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WgWTBs7uBmJahVeWKsSeRE.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Core i7-8700 fell right where we expected it to in VRMark: slightly below the stock Core i7-8700K.</p><p>AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X was a little faster though, as was the Core i5-8400. VRMark tends to reward high IPC throughput and frequency, but it also seems to prefer physical cores over simultaneous multi-threading technology.</p><p>Although the Core i7-8700 outstripped its K-series counterpart in the Fire Strike test, its lead isn't significant enough to call a definitive win. The heavily-threaded DX11 and DX12 benchmarks ran for an extended period of time. But frequent breaks in the sequence likely helped Core i7-8700 maintain the same level of performance under Intel's stock cooler and Corsair's Corsair H115i.</p><h2 id="ashes-of-the-singularity-escalation-3">Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CxKXw4ujKkvfbokR79QrhQ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/rsFac9YPvuthUTCY5RVMrV.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RbtxzKSJdyQCtJzfhqvQNk.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Our three-minute <em>Ashes of the Singularity</em> benchmark scales exceedingly well with additional cores, so it was surprising to see Core i7-8700 perform similarly with both thermal solutions.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-amp-ai-dawn-of-war-iii-3">Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III</h2><h2 id="civilization-vi-ai-test-3">Civilization VI AI Test</h2><p><em>Civilization's </em><span>AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance.</span></p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/b7A632zbJ4wuL66z9pyZxd.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/b7A632zbJ4wuL66z9pyZxd.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/b7A632zbJ4wuL66z9pyZxd.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>In our Core i7-8700K review, we pointed out that Intel's vanilla -8700 often outperformed the flagship -8700K in our gaming benchmarks. Obviously, those results were difficult to explain, given each CPU's specifications. But the issue persisted for several months (and many motherboard firmware updates). Intel and its motherboard partners have been unable to explain this phenomenon. However, we did notice that it was resolved around the time updates went out for our <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-2600x,5579.html">Spectre/Meltdown patch testing</a>. We still saw a few scattered cases of Core i7-8700 beating the flagship K-series chip, but they're typically results that fall within a margin of error.</p><p>Our <em>Civilization VI</em> AI test results are a perfect example. The Core i7-8700 with Corsair's cooler slipped past the Core i7-8700K, but just barely. More important is that you can get -8700K-class performance from the locked model if you don't plan on overclocking.</p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-test-3">Civilization VI Graphics Test</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XNveByisj6FNyrmAc39mKn.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/rCLstL9RfQ5WbtaCJSmhLm.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iNYnVCJ4ZykiTQyYEBYpvW.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The <em>Civilization VI</em> graphics test shows Intel's Core i7-8700 beating the -8700K by a larger margin. In fact, strong performance put the -8700 on equal footing with a tuned Ryzen 7 2700X, and within striking distance of the overclocked Core i7-8700K.</p><p>Separately, we saw the Core i7-7700K about 6 FPS ahead of the -7700. This illustrates the bigger gap between Intel's previous-gen locked and K-series models, attributable to large differences in base and Turbo Boost frequencies. </p><h2 id="warhammer-40-000-dawn-of-war-iii-3">Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WjmPnRMQevWexDNk9XUvDd.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/fqBj8Vb67waRJDMoup3pyJ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CPwRChdMoGUUk8ZHuJHN3Y.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Core i7-8700 almost kept up with the stock -8700K. But tuning Intel's flagship Coffee Lake-based CPU solidified its lead.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="far-cry-primal-gta-v-amp-hitman-2">Far Cry Primal, GTA: V & Hitman</h2><h2 id="far-cry-primal-2">Far Cry Primal</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ubmRHHaZNUZBnvKAb25TLL.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SKbN9isDLmQK4mg5PDYfiX.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/oAyyYBDbTVPxkLoadom3QN.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Far Cry Primal </em>obviously runs well on quad-core processors, and doesn't gain much from architectures with more execution resources. Meanwhile, a big gap between the Core i7-7700K and -7700 tells us that the game is sensitive to operating frequencies, too.</p><p>Core i7-8700 and -8700K were nearly indistinguishable through this benchmark run.</p><p>AMD's Ryzen CPUs appear to fare worse than the Intel chips in <em>Far Cry Primal</em>. Average frame rates can be misleading, though. Our frame time charts reveal much more performance variability from the Core processors. Ryzen 7 2700X's nice clean line is indicative of a smoother experience.</p><h2 id="grand-theft-auto-v-3">Grand Theft Auto V</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/b2KUCZi4KttnovfYprbZDB.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cVQTpPQWRcqRpED73mgunC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/csvxBGC8W9pKYxhszV3ejW.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The <em>Grand Theft Auto V</em> benchmark we use is one of our suite's longest in terms of run time. We record 100 seconds of the fly-by scene, first allowing the preceding sequences to run through and keep our hardware nice and toasty for consistent measurements.</p><p>Even though Intel's stock heat sink and fan finished in front of the -8700 cooled by Corsair's closed-loop H115i, the results fell within the range we anticipate between tests.</p><h2 id="hitman-3">Hitman </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/qZuDPczFv9F76qmToLQ3RF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kJNJPqUbin6ujnTzrCBfae.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5vvMDezMRWyLnMMTcmaK9h.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Our <em>Hitman</em> benchmark found the Core i7-8700 and -8700K pretty much tied. Both models are ~4 FPS ahead of the nearest Ryzen CPU.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="shadow-of-war-amp-project-cars-2-3">Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2</h2><h2 id="middle-earth-shadow-of-war-3">Middle-earth: Shadow Of War</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/chQBmNBT37d94jkyNzJ5U5.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WE76LptaoYW8ZKEhTMuyQj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jXhVrkrFcJaLSbWeCAnmpn.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Middle-earth</em> didn't respond any better to our six-core Coffee Lake-based samples than it did to their quad-core predecessors. Sometimes you just need more graphics horsepower.</p><h2 id="project-cars-2-3">Project CARS 2</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KynHiBhcDe2WWVyMiwCqKi.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Ji3UPWRHzAEGnQ7JS9Qmpc.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FYwEaQkDEZETtsXGZzkYF.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>According to its developers, <em>Project CARS 2</em><span> is well-optimized for multi-core CPUs. But a 6C/6T Core i5-8600K beat the overclocked 8C/16T Ryzen 7 2700X, so it's clear that threading isn't the most influential variable in determining this game's performance. <br/></span></p><p><span>The stock Core i7-8700K established a slight lead over the -8700 in our benchmark, although overclocking increased its advantage. More than likely, though, the top of this chart is graphics-bound.<br/></span></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="office-amp-productivity-3">Office & Productivity</h2><h2 id="adobe-creative-cloud-3">Adobe Creative Cloud</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/asaoJtkLgXUdvAEaNn8VyG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7pjWThdXbg23RukxVrqHqJ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZQrkrjkQvV2Jmvgbeqhdsk.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/AEhyVNY6rrdJPWUch4eRHf.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/d4TfoWh9ewcTwGEyFdFZH6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DzexvMp9dujtiPNJoEHS9Q.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Core i7-8700 with its stock heat sink lost some ground to Corsair's closed-loop liquid cooler in the Illustrator test. Otherwise, there was little to differentiate both configurations.</p><p>The stock Core i7-8700K barely beat Core i7-8700 in our aggregate score. However, overclocking the K-series chip to 4.9 GHz propelled it into a second-place finish (after Core i5-8600K, interestingly enough).</p><h2 id="web-browser-3">Web Browser</h2><p>The Meltdown and Spectre patches imposed performance penalties on Intel CPUs through our Web browser tests. However, Core processors still lead through these lightly-threaded benchmarks.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/JXgSHogVds3HFGcgAaN8C9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/bhXe8BNcYDtAsoKAd3bNUP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/udPMgSPdoYza8HVanmyna3.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X slid in ahead of Core i7-8700, reminding us that second-gen Ryzen CPUs are much more competitive than their predecessors in workloads that aren't well-optimized for parallelization.</p><p>MotionMark emphasizes graphics performance, rather than JavaScript, but is also sensitive to CPU clock rates. There, Core i7-8700 turned things around and beat the Ryzen 7 2700X. We weren't expecting a stock Core i7-8700K to carve out such a large advantage over the vanilla -8700, though.</p><h2 id="productivity-3">Productivity</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nUquHz2DkcdHGVJqXtQPVj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/g3Ea4QyKZ6dmFWxBaxuqPR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/oQRN3sxn8n3ZsEVHFbcFZW.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/z7R6babiWLPGsnznegxGHj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iPb3thUAMEMUoKXqAonDGA.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Core i7-8700 impressed in this benchmark by barely beating a stock -8700K. But the benefit of an unlocked K-series chip became evident in the Core i5-8600K and Core i7-8700K results at 4.9 GHz.</p><p>Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. This workload is parallelized, so it responds well to Ryzen's core count advantage. Nevertheless, a six-core design with Hyper-Threading allowed Core i7-8700K to muscle out the competition when we overclocked it to 4.9 GHz.</p><p>The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, so the Ryzen processors took an uncontested lead.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="rendering-encoding-amp-compression-3">Rendering, Encoding & Compression</h2><h2 id="rendering-3">Rendering</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/g8qUsiEoMZJK3hxzZ5dFzf.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/b5NaAk5hVqEU2a9vVvPcbg.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kbdhCULwf7Zz8qyxzCSq3C.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cGPMHQBYNNrcQsJxwGn4SF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7KWYSZYqJM5ABRteqcofYY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WnRbmn3BuynrwKA6T2WiVa.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gR6zPiofWSJ2J8J7ZiuR7d.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QvrxqTsTrnNxpqmHh9H33C.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4yeMVzqwBSMWjuDFYpG4Ve.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>We expected to see more variation from Intel's stock cooler during our Cinebench multi-core test. Given its relatively short run time and our open-air bench, however, we didn't see much difference between our two configurations. Interestingly, the stock Core i7-8700K and -8700 performed almost identically.</p><p>Similar trends emerged through the other threaded rendering tasks. While Core i7-8700's stock heat sink and fan imposed slightly lower performance than the liquid cooler in certain cases, we still think the -8700 is a solid alternative to the pricier flagship if you don't plan to overclock and cooling inside your case is sufficient.</p><h2 id="encoding-amp-compression-3">Encoding & Compression </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/9zUNrEaeoJ3wRokgVpELCb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/qH7s4mhAJrutx8x9xvGSk7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iE7DrQhCRrFxt9EpU7rpg7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/aaLmH7ce8aFfkNQMkvMCxC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Pa3Fppb85bsyVVft2xvSyD.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GLoMLMAucJEkNp9daKa2SZ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/qmfiPbgna78P3ZFnHH6Xxb.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>LAME is a single-threaded workload that typically illustrates the advantage of higher clock rates and IPC throughput. Case in point: Core i7-7700K and -7700 were separated by a larger delta than the two Coffee Lake-based Core i7s, which we know feature similar single-core Turbo Boost bins.</p><p>Our threaded compression and decompression tests work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. These workloads are especially intensive. Yet, we didn't record any surprising variations between the -8700 cooled by Intel's stock thermal solution and the Corsair all-in-one. Both of our HandBrake benchmarks, on the other hand, exploit AVX instruction, generate lots of heat, and illustrate a wider performance gap between the two configurations.</p><p>Surprisingly, y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi using AVX instructions, didn't expose any variation between the two coolers we tested atop Core i7-8700.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="final-analysis-2">Final Analysis</h2><p>Intel made some significant changes to the Coffee Lake architecture in order to keep its Core CPUs competitive with AMD's Ryzen line-up. Beyond giving the Core i7 family six Hyper-Threaded cores, Intel also narrowed the clock rate difference between premium K-series chips and the more mainstream models. Core i7-8700K does boast a 500 MHz base frequency advantage over Core i7-8700. But that gap shrinks as Turbo Boost is enabled and more cores spin up. By the time four cores are active, both chips <em>should </em>sustain 4.4 GHz.</p><p>Unfortunately, the decision to bundle Core i7-8700 with an all-aluminum heat sink means that you may not always get the chip's most aggressive Turbo Boost frequencies under taxing workloads. You'd assume that a CPU with 50% more cores would also dissipate more heat than its predecessor. And yet Intel didn't think to include a cooling solution with enough thermal headroom to realize its peak performance. This is especially perplexing given the praise AMD received for packaging its processors with beefy heat sinks.</p><p>Most of the time, though, Core i7-8700 does deliver an experience that closely mirrors the flagship -8700K at its stock settings. Check out the charts below, which plot gaming performance with average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99<sup>th</sup> percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness) converted into a frame-per-second measurement. We also have price-to-performance charts that get split up to include the CPUs-only, plus extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/qLYpXJkfcz9zweUpRSNcgG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/u5kVNoZmnEKuSjPRUcP6Yo.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nB4sdR4EyLSNvcw3MAGWnG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kgxZX4D4kMqwzsRUEGDQ4F.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CF32fQ9SKT9eEWwisRGSXN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wTUBQwMUAVTDhdD4mCPr76.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/bAgVVZQymTaf8X8wjJFDwW.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/dbmxzEiJWC7MZC2nhjnYf7.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>For those similar performance results, expect to spend about $50 less on a Core i7-8700. If you game at higher resolutions, the differences between CPUs shrink even more. And the -8700 looks a lot like a stock -8700K through most of our other application benchmarks, too.</p><p>Intel doesn't have a great track record for building backward compatibility into its platforms, so you are on the hook for a new 300-series motherboard, regardless of what you're stepping up from. But unless specific features of the Z370 chipset catch your eye, Core i7-8700 offers the exact same performance if you drop it onto a cheaper B-series board. That should save a few extra dollars...</p><p>...which you'll want to turn around and spend on a better thermal solution than what Intel includes with its -8700. That heat sink and fan combination is obviously a poor fit, and better thermal paste won't fix the issue. By stepping up to a sufficient third-party cooler, you won't have to worry about artificially clipping the -8700's top-end Turbo Boost bins due to overheating. A six-core, Hyper-Threaded CPU rated for 65W sounds great for performance-sensitive applications in small form factors. But power consumption definitely spikes higher under load. Apparently, many low-profile coolers lack the headroom for Core i7-8700, so do your homework before replacing the stock sink in a space-constrained environment.</p><p>In the past, we recommended Ryzen 7 2700X over Intel's Core i7-8700K due to AMD's lower price point, similar gaming performance, bundled cooler, and better benchmark results in threaded applications. We expected Core i7-8700's comparable performance and pricing advantage to level the field. However, Intel's sub-standard cooling solution means we can't recommend the -8700 without a suitable replacement, adding to the CPU's overall cost.</p><p>AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 is also worth considering in this category. Its unlocked ratio multiplier and overclocking support on B-series motherboards yields a more attractive value story than what we get from Core i7-8700. Of course, if you need integrated graphics with your high-end CPU, Intel is the only game in town. And if you're looking for the best blend of price and performance for gaming specifically, the Core i5-8400 is still a favorite.  </p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ AMD Ryzen 2 vs. Intel Coffee Lake: What's the Best CPU Platform? ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-ryzen-2,5615.html</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ It's the age-old question that has spurred endless debate: AMD or Intel? ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">jPo9drxvkYb7Hdeguq7PF8</guid>
                                                                                                <enclosure url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QRDSMxsBxphswo5z5Wfxn3-1280-80.jpg" type="image/jpeg" length="0"></enclosure>
                                                                        <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2018 13:30:00 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                <updated>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:52:11 +0000</updated>
                                                                                                                                            <category><![CDATA[CPUs]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[PC Components]]></category>
                                                                                                <author><![CDATA[ palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) ]]></author>                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ Paul Alcorn ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                    <dc:source><![CDATA[ https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RZRmFeQfPy3etHjBQitbGW.jpeg ]]></dc:source>
                                                                <dc:description><![CDATA[ &lt;p&gt;As a teenager, Paul scraped up enough money to buy a 486-powered PC with a turbo button (yes, a turbo button). Back when floppies were still popular he was already chasing after the fastest spinners for his personal computer, which led him down the long and winding storage road, covering enterprise storage. His current focus is on consumer processors, though he still keeps a close eye on the latest storage news. In his spare time, you’ll find Paul hanging out with his kids or indulging his love of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.&lt;/p&gt; ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <media:content type="image/jpeg" url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QRDSMxsBxphswo5z5Wfxn3-1280-80.jpg">
                                                            <media:credit><![CDATA[null]]></media:credit>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    </media:content>
                                                    <media:thumbnail url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QRDSMxsBxphswo5z5Wfxn3-1280-80.jpg" />
                                                                                                                                                                    <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:804px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:55.97%;"><img id="" name="" alt="Ryzen 2 vs Intel Coffee Lake" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QRDSMxsBxphswo5z5Wfxn3.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QRDSMxsBxphswo5z5Wfxn3.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="804" height="450" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QRDSMxsBxphswo5z5Wfxn3.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div><figcaption itemprop="caption description" class="pull-"><span class="caption-text">Ryzen 2 vs Intel Coffee Lake </span></figcaption></figure><p>It's the age-old question that has spurred endless debate: AMD or Intel? Today, that rivalry has reached new heights with AMD's Ryzen 2000 Series, often referred to by users (but not AMD) as "Ryzen 2," competing against Intel's 8th Gen "Coffee Lake" for desktop dominance.</p><p>To help you decide which processor platform to get, we've put Ryzen 2 and Coffee Lake through a seven-round face-off.</p><h2 id="features">Features</h2><p>AMD and Intel fight their biggest battles in the Core i7/Ryzen 7 and Core i5/Ryzen 5 families that comprise the bulk of the PC market. As we can see, prices are generally comparable between the two companies' lineups, with Ryzen 7/Core i7 spanning from $303 to $360, while the Ryzen 5/Core i5 series span from $182 to $260.</p><p>Even after Intel's adjustments to the Coffee Lake Core i7 series, AMD holds the advantage of more cores in its Ryzen 7 product line. Intel's Core i7 models come with six cores and twelve threads, while AMD's Ryzen 7 line wields eight cores and sixteen threads.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ></td><td  ><strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700X</strong></td><td  ><strong>Intel Core i7-8700K</strong></td><td  ><strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700</strong></td><td  ><strong>Intel Core i7-8700</strong></td><td  ><strong>AMD Ryzen 5 2600X</strong></td><td  ><strong>Intel Core i5-8600K</strong></td><td  ><strong>AMD Ryzen 5 2600</strong></td><td  ><strong>Intel Core i5-8400</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>MSRP</strong></td><td  >$329</td><td  >$359</td><td  >$299</td><td  >$303</td><td  >$229</td><td  >$257</td><td  >$199</td><td  >$182</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cores/Threads</strong></td><td  >8/16</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >8/16</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/6</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/6</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>TDP</strong></td><td  >105W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >65W</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Base Freq. (GHz)</strong></td><td  >3.7</td><td  >3.7</td><td  >3.2</td><td  >3.2</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.4</td><td  >2.8</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)</strong></td><td  >4.3</td><td  >4.7</td><td  >4.1</td><td  >4.6</td><td  >4.2</td><td  >4.3</td><td  >3.9</td><td  >4.0</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cache (L3)</strong></td><td  >16MB</td><td  >12MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >12MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >9MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >9MB</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Unlocked Multiplier</strong></td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >No</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >No</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cooler</strong></td><td  >105W Wraith Prism (LED)</td><td  >No</td><td  >95W Wraith Spire (LED)</td><td  >Intel Stock</td><td  >95W Wraith Spire</td><td  >No</td><td  >65W Wraith Stealth</td><td  >Intel Stock</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>The Ryzen 5 and Core i5 series are the general-purpose workhorses of most desktop PCs, and both lineups come with six cores. Intel has segmented its product stack by disabling Hyper-Threading on its Core i5 models, meaning software can only assign a single thread to each core. Meanwhile, AMD's Ryzen 5 models come with the company's Simultaneous Multi-Threading, which allows software to schedule two threads to each core at the same time. That gives Ryzen 5 an advantage with a total of twelve threads.</p><p>But not all cores are created equal. Intel holds the per-core performance advantage with its higher frequencies and generally processes more instructions per clock (IPC). Ryzen 7 tops out at 4.3 GHz with the 2700X model, while Intel's Core i7-8700K stretches up to 4.7 GHz. Intel's per-core performance advantage equates to more performance and responsiveness in lightly-threaded applications, such as most games and general desktop PC applications.</p><p>AMD's Ryzen 2 (2000 series) offers improved performance in heavily-threaded productivity applications, like rendering, video editing, and transcoding, and it also boosts performance in game titles that can utilize the extra cores and threads. Ryzen 2 also comes with Precision Boost 2, which is similar to Intel's multi-core boost implementation that provides higher boost frequencies when applications exercise multiple cores at once. Neither company discloses the full list of turbo frequencies, so it's hard to make comparisons based on the specifications alone, but we’ll put the processors to the test shortly.</p><p><strong>Winner: </strong>Tie. AMD Ryzen 2’s has more cores and more threads. However, Intel has higher clock speeds.</p>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="0fd61f98-3d79-4f2a-8102-3958120434a4">            <a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newegg.com%2FProduct%2FProduct.aspx%3FItem%3DN82E16819113499" data-model-name="Ryzen 7 2700X" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:83.03%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/c2cT8QyxBHDJ3zenoyjwN3.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 7 2700X</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="63008e20-f589-414e-b413-1251afcbccb1">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/Intel-BX80684I78700K-Core-i7-8700K-Processor/dp/B07598VZR8/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Core i7-8700K" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:122.29%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/j7KjsgaP5iuRZ7RRqGYQTc.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i7-8700K</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="080dcab8-ed7f-40fb-816d-4884a49f1457">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Processor-Wraith-Cooler/dp/B07B41717Z/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Ryzen 7 2700" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:85.13%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/F7QH5ABrY67xiuSF7GSJde.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 7 2700</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div><h2 id="overclocking">Overclocking</h2><p>You'll need an unlocked ratio multiplier to overclock your processor, and AMD holds a distinct advantage with unlocked multipliers on every Ryzen 2 model. AMD also allows you to overclock your processor on any B- or X-series AM4 motherboard, which stands in contrast to Intel's segmentation practices.</p><p>Intel only allows overclocking with its K-series processors, which come at a premium, and you'll also need a pricier Z-series motherboard. AMD's flexible overclocking options have earned it plenty of praise in the enthusiast community because you can achieve nearly the same performance with the less-expensive "non-X" models as the pricier X models.</p><p>You'll pay for the privilege, but Intel does hold the uncontested lead in overclocking. Intel's processors generally land in the 4.9 to 5.0 GHz range after tuning, while AMD's Ryzen 2 often taps out at 4.2 GHz. Of course, the silicon lottery applies, so chip quality can have an impact on the maximum attainable overclocks.</p><p>Intel also holds the advantage on the memory overclocking front, too. The company's processors have a much higher memory data transfer rate potential than AMD's lineup. AMD's Zen microarchitecture profits greatly from increased memory data transfer rates, which often manifests as impressive performance scaling in games, while you don't see as much of a progressive performance increase from the Intel models.</p><p><strong>Winner: </strong>Intel. You can push Intel’s CPU and your memory far beyond AMD’s processors, which often run very close to the limits at stock settings.</p><h2 id="stock-coolers">Stock Coolers</h2><p>Intel's stock coolers certainly aren't noteworthy. These dinky coolers match the processors' TDP rating exactly, and Intel doesn't include them with the overclockable K-series models. Shelling out for an aftermarket cooler adds more cost to your build, so this is a problem you're paying for.</p><p>AMD's excellent coolers are one of the hallmarks of its Ryzen lineup. These coolers often support at least some level of overclocking, but they are also attractive. AMD's Ryzen 7 series now comes equipped with beefy LED-lit stock coolers, too.</p><p>The processors' TDP rating also serves as a general indicator of power consumption and thermal generation. Most of Intel and AMD's comparably-priced models share similar TDP ratings, though the Ryzen 7 2700X stands alone as the only 105W processor. That's higher than Intel's maximum 95W rating.</p><p><strong>Winner: </strong>AMD Ryzen 2. Intel's stock coolers are a joke, but nobody's laughing at AMD.</p>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="ec121d06-dc35-49ac-a7bb-bfa7e0f4716b">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Processor-Wraith-Cooler/dp/B07B428V2L/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Ryzen 5 2600X" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:75.00%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/n6SEL4AuCHxdQqWBLh4Tsk.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 5 2600X</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="e5e1bef4-24e9-4ce2-84a6-d94c9ae2146d">            <a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newegg.com%2FProduct%2FProduct.aspx%3FItem%3DN82E16819117825" data-model-name="Core i5-8600K" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:120.30%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ovaurhrrbXkvAC9XyKvdJU.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i5-8600K</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="0ac5b302-5596-42a5-880b-268c94ebebec">            <a href="http://www.tkqlhce.com/click-8900246-12920453?sid=tomshardware-&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newegg.com%2FProduct%2FProduct.aspx%3FItem%3DN82E16819113496" data-model-name="Ryzen 5 2600" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:75.00%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/n6SEL4AuCHxdQqWBLh4Tsk.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 5 2600</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div><h2 id="motherboards">Motherboards</h2><p>AMD and Intel's motherboards are also key considerations. As we mentioned, Intel restricts overclocking to its pricey Z-Series motherboards, while AMD allows you to overclock on its less-expensive B-series models.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:711px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.96%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PJBp8A72ryG69MjTjWc5fV.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PJBp8A72ryG69MjTjWc5fV.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="711" height="533" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PJBp8A72ryG69MjTjWc5fV.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>AMD has also promised to support its AM4 motherboards (the models that support Ryzen processors) until 2020, so you can upgrade your system by simply dropping in a new processor. AMD has already released A-, B-, and X-series 300-series motherboards, and it is refreshing AM4 with newer 400-series motherboards. Compatibility is assured with both generations of Ryzen processors, though you may have to flash the BIOS on an older motherboard to support the newer processors.</p><p>In contrast, Intel refreshes its chipsets and sockets more frequently. The Coffee Lake models won't work in the previous-generation 200-series motherboards that have the same socket, so 300-series motherboards are your only option. Intel hasn't guaranteed socket support for its future processors, so it’s possible that newer chip generations will require a new motherboard, which restricts upgrade options.</p><p><strong>Winner:</strong> AMD. Intel squeezes you for every penny if you want to overclock, and its constant socket and chipset changes restricts future upgrades.</p><h2 id="gaming-performance">Gaming Performance</h2><p>When it comes to gaming, Coffee Lake beats Ryzen 2 on most titles, simply because more games are lightly-threaded and benefit from Intel's higher single-core clock speeds. AMD's processors are generally more competitive in game titles that can leverage their additional cores effectively, such as Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation, but Intel takes the lead in titles that benefit from increased frequency and instructions per clock cycle, like Grand Theft Auto V.</p><p>As you can see with our Middle-Earth: Shadow of War benchmark results, some games don't respond as well to increased host processing resources, instead responding better to more capable graphics cards.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/N3kQqi8SwQfkdsNVXuPAva.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VHzfnHfVkXf7fLUQbXKKQn.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4vQizsZzJUmVDd7umHPeRG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ScMAau3xdFo8PkgxXErj8V.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/rNmmkJJ3HTiVc3Xugb5HqS.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/fKVwJxepZXiFGAUbacEHpS.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LtBUTh9Vj3aFqhhFPr4EPi.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/G9FNKCKtst8KTepiiVn7QB.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TQW88EuFkpvZqeDfLEDLnm.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/t8RK4sgRCvUu5qF3pGBK3G.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ruzxH5bbCffoUKDGVATbJG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZptHBoW62Cr2DEWw2cAWtC.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Our first two slides contain a geometric mean of frame rates for all of the games in our standard test suite. We split these values into average frame rates and 99th-percentile frame rates, with the latter being a good indicator of the smoothness of your gaming experience. The remainder of the slides contain the results of each test.</p><p>Intel's Core i7-8700K offers the highest average gaming performance at both stock and overclocked settings, though the Core i5-8600K does provide a slightly smoother experience with stock settings. AMD's Ryzen 2 processors don't provide as much peak performance, but they do offer near-equivalency in our tests at 1080p so you may not notice the difference. If you game with higher resolutions, these performance deltas will shrink further as the GPU becomes the bottleneck.</p><p>Intel's Core i5-8400 is the least expensive chip in our tests, but it offers a great level of performance for its price point. The Ryzen 5 2600X also stands out as a capable performer but overclocking the Ryzen 5 2600 yields nearly the same performance. We also see the same story play out with the Ryzen 7 2700X and 2700.</p><p><strong>Winner:</strong> Intel offers stronger performance in more games. However, if you're streaming, <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/game-streaming-encoding-coffee-lake-ryzen,5326.html">AMD's multitasking might is better</a>.</p><h2 id="productivity-performance">Productivity Performance</h2><p>Our productivity results generally mirror the respective capabilities of Ryzen 2 (2000 series), which tends to perform better in heavily-threaded applications, and Coffee Lake processors, which tend to perform best in lightly-threaded apps.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/z6vPSaP8xTEE2NhsZhD9vP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mGqJjv6iN2SaUqJgTGm29F.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7j4PGaXPps3WwJA8cRppA9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XTbaQTwGjzPHQb3deXZCYQ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/utwvwLpPm4RuWjcYHijuZP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RegSvidozSmAeAm7Bmrai5.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/T9rh737cLvL8UwY6FQSC7E.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NqWus4zmnsBtawY4tztJsR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SMQBvc4Ku2px5AfkDTcm54.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tM6yTr4XRw3y7PhSct4eCk.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QDAyAcy9qe9uQSYLabFhni.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/aDaxbdoDFpjgakKbpWpsVC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2Za7JrfbpDYwdwFMRpkiJd.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XtrWpskDDzcUmjPGbAt5QV.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uCnfZuH2dnETPu4zxsvyod.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zrdLVXSeH5sqTESHyicfKL.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SwGgZcPgJvoCKbGxY8ZQif.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jufPuUTL8bVhVh3v3z4cqS.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KFxRVyoiTYK5MBfFgVyAR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DXANDd5pSH58iBjaHVJj2e.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YYYzYnuonCQwUy69uErwgM.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>That means Ryzen excels in decompression, compression, and rendering applications, but the chips also provide more than acceptable performance across our wide range of lightly-threaded workloads.</p><p>Intel's Coffee Lake processors also provide acceptable performance in those applications, but they excel in lightly-threaded apps. That includes applications like the Adobe Creative Cloud Suite, web browsers, single-core rendering workloads, and our LAME encoding benchmark. Intel also enjoys a performance advantage in applications that leverage powerful AVX instructions, like our x265 HandBrake test.</p><p><strong>Winner:</strong> Tie. If you are primarily browsing the web, using office apps or even playing with Adobe's creative suite, Intel is faster. However, if you use a lot of multi-threaded, non-Adobe software for rendering videos, photos and animations, AMD is a better choice.</p><h2 id="value">Value</h2><p>By almost any measure, AMD processors offer more bang for your buck. First, with two equivalent chips, the AMD processor is usually cheaper. For example, at publishing time, the high-end AMD Ryzen 7 2700X ($319) was $20 cheaper than the equivalent Intel chip, the Core i7-8700K ($339) while the mid-range Ryzen 5 2600X ($219) was about $35 less its counterpart, the Core i5-8600K ($244).</p><p>If you want to overclock with Intel, you have to spend extra for a K-series CPU, but with AMD, you can buy a mainstream chip and overclock it. And if you want to overclock your Intel CPU, you need a pricey,  Z-Series motherboard, but with AMD, you can overclock with even an inexpensive B-Series board.</p><p>But wait, there's more. The AMD chips all come with really good stock CPU coolers that you might actually want to use while Intel doesn't even give you a fan for its K-series chips and gives you a poor-quality one for the rest of its lineup.</p><p><strong>Winner: </strong>AMD Ryzen 2 by a landslide.</p><h2 id="bottom-line">Bottom Line</h2><p>Ryzen 2 wins this competition by a nose, winning five rounds to four. Of the seven rounds in our face-off, two -- features and productivity performance -- were a tie. However, the real winner here is you. As a consumer, you have a wide variety of great processor choices from two strong manufacturers.</p><p>Which CPU platform you choose should depend on two main factors: your budget and what types of software you use most. If you want the best performance for the majority of games and productivity apps, which are lightly threaded, Intel Coffee Lake is your top choice. However, if you want the best speed for the money or you use a lot of heavily-threaded apps, AMD Ryzen 2 was made for you.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Round</strong></td><td  ><strong>Intel Coffee Lake</strong></td><td  ><strong>AMD Ryzen 2</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Features</strong></td><td  >✗</td><td  >✗</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Overclocking</strong></td><td  >✗</td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Stock Coolers</strong></td><td  ></td><td  >✗</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Motherboards</strong></td><td  ></td><td  >✗</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Gaming Performance</strong></td><td  >✗</td><td  ></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Productivity Performance</strong></td><td  >✗</td><td  >✗</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Value</strong></td><td  ></td><td  >✗</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Total</strong></td><td  >4</td><td  >5</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Review: The Non-X Factor ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-7-2700-2700x-review,5606.html</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 sports the same eight-core, 16-thread architecture as the company's more expensive Ryzen 7 2700X. But this is one of those rare situations when we think it's worth paying extra for the higher-end model ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">YU7CQ69TJtXJx2bwyn8SuM</guid>
                                                                                                <enclosure url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/H4xvXgiwehChtP9ZmQRKSD-1280-80.jpg" type="image/jpeg" length="0"></enclosure>
                                                                        <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2018 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                <updated>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:30:31 +0000</updated>
                                                                                                                                            <category><![CDATA[CPUs]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[PC Components]]></category>
                                                                                                <author><![CDATA[ palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) ]]></author>                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ Paul Alcorn ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                    <dc:source><![CDATA[ https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RZRmFeQfPy3etHjBQitbGW.jpeg ]]></dc:source>
                                                                <dc:description><![CDATA[ &lt;p&gt;As a teenager, Paul scraped up enough money to buy a 486-powered PC with a turbo button (yes, a turbo button). Back when floppies were still popular he was already chasing after the fastest spinners for his personal computer, which led him down the long and winding storage road, covering enterprise storage. His current focus is on consumer processors, though he still keeps a close eye on the latest storage news. In his spare time, you’ll find Paul hanging out with his kids or indulging his love of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.&lt;/p&gt; ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <media:content type="image/jpeg" url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/H4xvXgiwehChtP9ZmQRKSD-1280-80.jpg">
                                                            <media:credit><![CDATA[null]]></media:credit>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    </media:content>
                                                    <media:thumbnail url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/H4xvXgiwehChtP9ZmQRKSD-1280-80.jpg" />
                                                                                                                                                                    <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <h2 id="go-x-or-go-home">Go X Or Go Home</h2><p>AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 includes the same eight cores as its more expensive <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571.html">Ryzen 7 2700X</a> flagship, plus simultaneous multi-threading technology that allows each core to work on two software threads at the same time. But its clock rates are trimmed back to create a $30-cheaper model sporting a little less performance. Even though the 2700 loses its enthusiast-targeted X modifier, AMD still arms the chip with an unlocked ratio multiplier for flexible overclocking. And this less expensive CPU should hit nearly the same frequencies as the Ryzen 7 2700X we like so much.</p><p>Last generation, plenty of overclocking headroom and lower prices earned AMD's non-X Ryzen SKUs praise up and down the stack. Much of that was based on the company's bundled coolers, though. For example, the then-flagship Ryzen 7 1800X launched at $500 with no thermal solution at all. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 7 1700 sold for $330 with a cooler in the box. Now, AMD bundles a heat sink and fan with all of its new Ryzen chips. Moreover, it only sells 2700 at a $30 discount. Worse, although it's possible to match Ryzen 7 2700X's performance after a bit of overclocking, you need an aftermarket cooler to get there. AMD's freebie won't cut it. This time around, there's not much reason to step down a tier.</p><h2 id="ryzen-7-2700">Ryzen 7 2700 </h2><p>With its 2000-series Ryzen processors, AMD was challenged to deliver more than the incremental improvements we've been seeing from Intel lately. To begin, the company swapped out its 14nm manufacturing process with a 12nm node, enabling higher clock rates at the same power consumption levels. AMD also optimized the Zen architecture by adding more sophisticated multi-core boost algorithms and <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571-3.html">lowering cache and memory latencies</a>. Together, those changes enable speed-ups in pretty much every type of workload we test with, and they're all baked in to Ryzen 7 2700.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ></td><td  ><strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700X</strong></td><td  >AMD Ryzen 7 1800X</td><td  ><strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700</strong></td><td  >Ryzen 7 1700</td><td  >AMD Ryzen 5 1600X</td><td  >AMD Ryzen 5 2600X</td><td  >AMD Ryzen 5 2600</td><td  >Intel Core i7-8700K</td><td  >Intel Core i5-8600K</td><td  >Intel Core i5-8400</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>MSRP</strong></td><td  >$329</td><td  >$349</td><td  >$299</td><td  >$299</td><td  >$219</td><td  >$229</td><td  >$199</td><td  >$359</td><td  >$257</td><td  >$182</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cores/Threads</strong></td><td  >8/16</td><td  >8/16</td><td  >8/16</td><td  >8/16</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/6</td><td  >6/6</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>TDP</strong></td><td  >105W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >65W</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Base Freq. (GHz)</strong></td><td  >3.7</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.2</td><td  >3.0</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.4</td><td  >3.7</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >2.8</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)</strong></td><td  >4.3</td><td  >4.1</td><td  >4.1</td><td  >3.8</td><td  >4.0</td><td  >4.2</td><td  >3.9</td><td  >4.7</td><td  >4.3</td><td  >4.0</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cache (L3)</strong></td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >12MB</td><td  >9MB</td><td  >9MB</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Unlocked Multiplier</strong></td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >No</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cooler</strong></td><td  >105W Wraith Prism (LED)</td><td  >-</td><td  >95W Wraith Spire (LED)</td><td  >95W Wraith Spire</td><td  >-</td><td  >95W Wraith Spire</td><td  >65W Wraith Stealth</td><td  >-</td><td  >-</td><td  >Intel</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>AMD rates its Ryzen 7 2700 at a much lower 65W thermal design power than its 105W Ryzen 7 2700X. That's partly why the 2700's base frequency is a much more conservative 3.2 GHz, while its maximum Precision Boost clock rate tops out at 4.1 GHz. You'd think, then, that the bundled 95W Wraith Spire thermal solution with LED lighting would be beefy enough for aggressive overclocking. It's not, though. If you're really after Ryzen's peak potential, purchase a more capable aftermarket heat sink/fan combination or closed-loop liquid cooler.</p><p>All 2000-series Ryzen CPUs are compatible with motherboards sporting new X470 or older 300-series chipsets. You can even overclock the new processors on value-oriented B-series platforms. While lower-cost 400-series chipsets aren't available yet, we're counting on them to offer a more affordable option for enthusiasts looking to tune 2000-series Ryzen CPUs.</p><p>The Ryzen 7 2700 supports up to DDR4-2933 memory, just like the 2700X. Just be aware that you'll only get those data rates with single-rank modules installed in a maximum of two slots. Even then, it takes a motherboard with six PCB layers to operate at 2933 MT/s stably. AMD uses Indium solder between its Ryzen 7 die and heat spreader, improving thermal transfer performance compared to Intel CPUs reliant on paste instead.</p><p>Like all 2000-series models, the Ryzen 7 2700 comes with <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-fuzedrive-fuzeram-enmotus-ryzen,36368.html">StorMI Technology</a>, which is a software-based tiering solution that blends the low price and high capacity of hard drives with the speed of an SSD, 3D XPoint, or even up to 2GB of RAM.</p><h2 id="precision-boost-2-and-xfr2">Precision Boost 2 And XFR2</h2><p>AMD's previous-gen Ryzen processors include Precision Boost functionality, which is similar to Intel's Turbo Boost technology. They also sport a feature called eXtended Frequency Range (XFR), which enables higher clock rates when it's determined that your cooling solution has thermal headroom to spare.</p><p>The new Precision Boost 2 (PB2) and XFR2 algorithms improve performance in threaded workloads by raising the frequency of any number of cores. AMD doesn't share a list of specific multi-core PB2 and XFR2 bins because the opportunistic algorithms accelerate to different clock rates based on temperature, current, and load. However, we collected our measurements on a motherboard with solid voltage regulation circuitry and a good cooler, two requirements for optimal frequencies.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:989px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:75.03%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KfSHM4wcaYKM9VWgPk9FdS.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KfSHM4wcaYKM9VWgPk9FdS.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="989" height="742" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KfSHM4wcaYKM9VWgPk9FdS.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The Ryzen 7 2700 offers an impressive 4.1 GHz clock rate benchmarked in a single-threaded workload. Try as we might, though, the CPU wouldn't exhibit the same graceful downward frequency slope as AMD's 2700X as we increased the test's thread count. No doubt, Ryzen 7 2700 is a step up compared to the previous-gen Ryzen 7 1700, but its frequency drops further and faster than the 2700X.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="overclocking-amp-test-setup"> Overclocking & Test Setup</h2><h2 id="overclocking-2">Overclocking</h2><p>Like the Ryzen 7 2700X, we overclocked AMD's 2700 to 4.2 GHz. While the lower-end chip did need a bit more voltage to get there, our 1.4V Vcore, 1.2V SoC, and Level four Loadline Calibration (LLC) settings are still within the safe zone for AMD's processors. They just make the CPU operate a little warmer than it would otherwise. Top the 2700 with a capable closed-loop watercooler and thermals won't be an issue. If you're stuck with AMD's bundled heat sink and fan, though, expect Ryzen 7 2700 to fall short of its best possible overclock. Our sample topped out at 4.05 GHz as it exceeded 95°C.</p><p>We did match the 2700X's overclocked memory settings (DDR4-3466 at 14-14-14-34 timings) with minimal effort. That's particularly encouraging since memory tuning dramatically improves Ryzen's gaming performance.</p><h2 id="precision-boost-overdrive">Precision Boost Overdrive</h2><p>AMD isn't giving us much detail about its Precision Boost Overdrive feature, though we know it increases maximum boost voltage and boost duration. However, we also know that Precision Boost Overdrive is an AMD-sanctioned feature. Because this is a standard capability for Ryzen 2000-series processors, we leave it enabled. Conversely, we disable the Multi-Core Enhancement BIOS option found in many Intel-based motherboards because it overclocks beyond the company's specifications.</p><h2 id="msi-x470-gaming-m7-ac">MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC</h2><p><span class="notranslate">Our MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC has a PCI Express 3.0 slot with a x16 link, a slot with a x8 connection, and another PCI Express 2.0 slot with a four-lane link for graphics cards. Its </span><span class="notranslate">four RAM slots support DDR4-2933 and scale quite a bit higher through overclocking.</span></p><p><span class="notranslate">The motherboard also provides two M.2 slots with PCIe connectivity.</span><span class="notranslate"> The I/O panel has a USB 3.1 Type C connector.</span><span class="notranslate"> The </span><span class="notranslate">USB 3.1 and USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports support fast charging for smartphones and tablets.</span><span class="notranslate"> If RGB is your thing, MSI has you covered. T</span><span class="notranslate">he integrated RGB Mystic lighting allows customizable effects with several software-controlled zones.</span><span class="notranslate"><br/></span></p><h2 id="comparison-products-4">Comparison Products </h2>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="0a8c3551-37ba-4b18-bb4f-2232d3d107bb">            <a href="http://www.tkqlhce.com/click-8900246-12920453?sid=tomshardware-&url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117824" data-model-name="Core i5-8400" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:108.91%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Mbp7fKeJrnqTAagSTBP399.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i5-8400</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="1099908a-53a6-42cd-a705-522be99da110">            <a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117825" data-model-name="Core i5-8600K" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:120.30%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ovaurhrrbXkvAC9XyKvdJU.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i5-8600K</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="5552584e-ab34-4e75-944a-627b0405ea86">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/Intel-BX80684I78700K-Core-i7-8700K-Processor/dp/B07598VZR8/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Core i7-8700K" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:122.29%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/j7KjsgaP5iuRZ7RRqGYQTc.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i7-8700K</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div><h2 id="test-systems-3">Test Systems</h2><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  colspan="2"><strong>Test System & Configuration</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Hardware</strong></td><td  ><strong><strong>AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)</strong></strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700, Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466<strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):</strong>Intel Core i7-8700K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466<strong>AMD Socket AM4 (300-Series)</strong>AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700, Ryzen 5 1600XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3200<strong>All</strong> EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703 - All Spectre and Meltdown mitigations</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cooling</strong></td><td  ><strong>U.S.</strong>Corsair H115i</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="vrmark-3dmark-amp-aots-escalation-4">VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation</h2><h2 id="vrmark-amp-3dmark-3">VRMark & 3DMark </h2><p>While synthetic benchmarks scale well with increased host computing resources, those gains don't always translate to real-world gaming performance. Rather, these benchmarks give us a solid measure of theoretical horsepower available to game engines.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NwhqtgZHjgBEF2iTSt8vjS.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5FgDXwiWVorUL2YKHR5uw9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VBnJj76wG5ZeWgNHCywzGS.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>All of our test processors easily passed the 109 FPS threshold that UL sets as the minimum for a smooth virtual reality experience.</p><p>The stock Ryzen 7 2700 nearly matched AMD's previous-gen 1800X. However, it also trailed the 2700X by a significant margin. A bit of tuning goes a long way though, and the overclocked 2700 came close to tying our overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X. Also interesting, the stock Ryzen 5 2600X beat Ryzen 7 2700 out of the box. </p><h2 id="ashes-of-the-singularity-escalation-4">Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RkEi8bzu3Qyg3pu5MvMQXX.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gfs3D6HDEgkhCHB5SGU7bj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5Jqcz9SAxJwufjKSNrnHQg.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The 2700's stock performance was impressive, highlighting the advantage of lower memory latency and enhanced multi-core turbo algorithms. Overclocked, Ryzen 7 2700 exceeded the performance of a stock 2700X.</p><p><em>Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</em> scales well with additional threads, so six-core models without Intel's Hyper-Threading Technology like the Core i5-8400 and -8600K languish at the bottom of our chart. Overclocking propelled the Core i5-8600K into contention with a tuned 6C/12T Ryzen 5 2600X. </p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-amp-ai-dawn-of-war-iii-4">Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III</h2><h2 id="civilization-vi-ai-test-4">Civilization VI AI Test</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:75.00%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6MyvAFxuFjB3UriKgRXZEj.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6MyvAFxuFjB3UriKgRXZEj.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="834" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6MyvAFxuFjB3UriKgRXZEj.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p><em>Civilization's </em><span>AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance. Therefore, its comes as no surprise that a stock Ryzen 7 2700 delivered the turn time we expected, given fairly conservative clock rates. <br/></span></p><p><span>An unlocked ratio multiplier is a mighty equalizer, though. After overclocking, the 2700 outpaced Ryzen 7 2700X operating at its default clock rates and nearly matched the Core i7-8700K. Of course, tuning the Intel processors widened their lead considerably. <br/></span></p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-test-4">Civilization VI Graphics Test</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/njwbeYixwEsc3hWkXByZeS.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TnDG5KGHvp2dLc7NZmg77Q.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6HCw8ZhXhUMxRjetJpoL9B.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Ryzen 7 2700 beat the Ryzen 7 1800X in stock trim, though tuning improved its outcome significantly.</p><p>Clearly, Intel's Core i5-8400 is a formidable competitor. It achieved almost the same performance as an overclocked Ryzen 7 2700. Too bad, then, that Intel locks the chip's multiplier, preventing enthusiasts from making it any faster. Stepping up to an overclockable Core i5-8600K yielded a big performance boost, though that also compels you to spend big on a Z-series motherboard and aftermarket cooler.</p><p>A tuned Ryzen 7 2700 trailed the 2700X at a similar 4.2 GHz, if only slightly. </p><h2 id="warhammer-40-000-dawn-of-war-iii-4">Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/dbSg4SHAPv2TsHqoZGRNBA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/74VLc6D6Pm5otoibR3d3dF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Lbys6tgnuLQqx9znjGRe4J.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III</em> responds best to the high clock rates of Intel's tuned CPUs. This time around, however, an overclocked Ryzen 7 2700 nearly matched the stock Core i7-8700K.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="far-cry-primal-gta-v-amp-hitman-3">Far Cry Primal, GTA: V & Hitman</h2><h2 id="far-cry-primal-3">Far Cry Primal </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Xt4biXQT7uhu7xEvrHxFAP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YKbv9Tkr753YpyohpTDYqN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NwHkHMTbfdybN7mgcjNfhc.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Our F<em>ar Cry Primal</em> benchmark used to swing entirely in Intel's favor. But AMD's 2000-series Ryzen processors are much more competitive than their predecessors. Again, a stock Ryzen 7 2700 easily outpaced AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X and 1700. And this time around, a bit of overclocking even pushed the 2700 beyond AMD's flagship at 4.2 GHz.</p><h2 id="grand-theft-auto-v-4">Grand Theft Auto V</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vGw6A37K2Y9CwThZfgNxVf.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tWbhGB2uzCuoZgfL8xwLW7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GpFKqHAuHTiDYjhJNE5vsP.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Grand Theft Auto V</em><span> </span>favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates. The tuned Ryzen processors, which effectively tied each other, go a long way to improve AMD's competitive position.</p><h2 id="hitman-4">Hitman </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/85x32P6bjQWTmnk6saLtNm.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FmfcPM7m82dRpg88TDnxp9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Dz9MQ5C3sVAqXLJptBeokm.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Hitman</em>'s Game of the Year update imposed a 90 FPS cap, so this title no longer scales well with high-end PCs. Unfortunately, some popular AAA titles employ similar frame rate limits, so we leave this result in our suite to show that not all titles respond to faster components.</p><p>Overall, the results are unsurprising given IO Interactive's newly-imposed performance ceiling. However, the Core i5's results stand out for their low 99th percentile frame rates.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="shadow-of-war-amp-project-cars-2-4">Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2</h2><h2 id="middle-earth-shadow-of-war-4">Middle-earth: Shadow Of War</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NSh5x9L9RqkJQY3dqQbfda.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Zady9ZZXzA2uwMdfPXdfB6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Uck6zsiQUC9R6HHsnNq6ii.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Middle-earth: Shadow of War</em><span> </span>doesn't scale as well as some of our other benchmarks, and it certainly isn't as sensitive to IPC throughput and clock rate as <em>Shadow of Mordor</em><span>. <br/></span></p><p><span>All of the processors we benchmarked offered a similar gaming experience, though the Ryzen 7 1700 obviously lagged the group due to its lower frequency and lack of multi-core turbo. <br/></span></p><h2 id="project-cars-2-4">Project CARS 2</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SBmpD88msw7F9ZnoHz5UGo.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3sSmxAohrKfgzQ2cUFdus3.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yYB4xRYunfyVpdJvUTcFuL.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>While the tuned Ryzen 7 2700 effectively tied Core i7-8700K, Intel's Core i5-8400 remained a formidable challenger. Overclocking helped the Core CPUs to some extent, though as we saw from Intel's Core i5-8600K, these numbers are indicative of a graphics bottleneck. </p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="office-amp-productivity-4">Office & Productivity</h2><h2 id="adobe-creative-cloud-4">Adobe Creative Cloud</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZFnbhZafXnTFiebEMBZQNF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nxRbJ3yLBQDx7vcL2wrYrf.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Tgk79UocashD6BXX25mCaN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Mr5osmXZjWQmtGcJgxo7yH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/txfUAS4ZjSTnz6cSAxPPKg.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/t682Nfw4Q4L7ACXBg4tuPo.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The Ryzen 7 2700 lagged behind AMD's 2700X flagship at stock settings in our Creative Cloud suite, particularly during the benchmark's lightly-threaded tests. Overclocking helped achieve near-parity, though.</p><p>Intel's processors benefited from increased overclocking headroom and the ability to get more done per clock cycle, easily outpacing the rest of our CPUs.</p><h2 id="web-browser-4">Web Browser</h2><p>The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eqQjSHXA7GC6sqwWgW86TT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7eYFYkNC57qBDskZURbkea.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PE4GmtBafEg7rFAnJLgqPR.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>AMD's processors typically lag Intel's in Web browser benchmarks due to their lower per-core performance. So it comes as little surprise that a stock Ryzen 7 2700 suffered in these metrics due to its low frequency range. Of course, overclocking helped rectify this.</p><h2 id="productivity-4">Productivity</h2><p>The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/q3gpm7JRv3xTHJNbkHXPJE.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WM5FNciKf8LqBFdnxzb2kC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XL8Rm3QjqnWQP2a5rGoHzM.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/AqCLairno7pnMHr9EYAVjH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SzHgwpPnEHJWDwsBTzRp5R.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 performed admirably right out of the box. While overclocking yielded a big boost, the 2700 still fell behind the pricier Ryzen 7 2700X.</p><p>Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. This workload benefits from parallelism, so the 8C/16T Ryzen models naturally enjoyed the largest advantage from their architecture. Although an overclocked Ryzen 7 2700 slipped past AMD's 2700X, its lead fell within the margin of error. </p><p>The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, so Ryzen 7 2700X took an expected lead.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="rendering-encoding-amp-compression-4">Rendering, Encoding & Compression</h2><h2 id="rendering-4">Rendering </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cETUpTcvAHGbtbrYViuCz9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/urCJLtBsGVfxiVzNCaxXEZ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/72bqjGMvQYhu8yF8j5LbdK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KN2Ye4nUVX3gdhfwYnbQLH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TGvmFaxoyPrr9MA8azaLtJ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/w2kxf6Yy26JqFSDpnMFLDZ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/L3BZf2YvHcwLUiaAimLHt8.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BG2UcGvg2e4dx5JTrZ2nrL.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Axybz3BMtqSfbgfzG44Vj8.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Ryzen 7 CPUs find plenty of fans among the rendering crowd. AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 represents a solid step beyond the company's 1000-series processors in our multi-threaded tests. In fact, it often provided a similar performance level as the previous-generation 1800X flagship in our tests.</p><p>The Intel processors demonstrated their per-core advantage in our lightly threaded tests. Meanwhile, a stock Ryzen 7 2700X proved faster than the same chip overclocked in many of the same benchmarks, since its 4.3 GHz dual-core boost frequency is higher than our 4.2 GHz all-core overclock.</p><h2 id="encoding-amp-compression-4">Encoding & Compression </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mszLo4E6UzeCLcPU3GUhJP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WGdR8n69zQpdXQg7vpueoU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DRuBvuCYSGNpTjNHjV9WXV.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uY9FfYWMUq4fykY5ygQ5MY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UN3tpLd29Zp5ZNcEJhFccj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/B2Qjrn9KtZsv25n8dx9dC8.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PsYsuzprxC2CNUDxhCUkuH.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>LAME is a quintessential single-threaded workload that typically illustrates Intel's per-clock advantage. This time around, though, AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600X landed on top of the mighty Core i7-8700K in stock form.</p><p>Our threaded compression and decompression tests work directly from system memory, removing our SSDs from the equation. The Ryzen 7 2700 put its eight cores to good use, beating most of its competition.</p><p>There's a larger delta between Intel and AMD processors in our HandBrake x265 test compared to the x264 benchmark, given the former's heavier reliance on AVX instructions. AMD looks much better in both metrics than it used to, though. The improved multi-core Precision Boost 2 frequencies help level the playing field.  </p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="final-analysis-3">Final Analysis</h2><p>AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 boasts many of the same features as the flagship 2700X, including an eight-core architecture and 16MB of L3 cache. But it loses quite a bit of steam in our benchmarks due to its lower clock rates. Overclockers can get comparable performance out of both CPUs, but they need to replace the stock heat sink and fan with higher-end aftermarket cooling first. This sullies any value advantage the 2700 might have enjoyed.</p><p>How does a frequency disadvantage affect the 2700's viability in a gaming PC versus AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X? The charts below plot performance using average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99<sup>th</sup> percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then convert into a FPS measurement. We also present price-to-performance charts that get split up to include CPUs-only and extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add an extra $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/35z8g4hYoc68Rq8HjT6Fb7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UpHZ9QjgEp4mdwqUak323B.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BPasEVDY6n89mUsNtnf3HT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zpD5VKVucbtTm2EitPVCu5.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zBuz6ohsAJ6CZLQWEqtJVU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LtRbsB8a3M6n5wMyFunRJH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5N6xXhNPb7HechJzJFXLoP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wn5TQgVdnjdbsHhzJ3iqsP.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>When it comes to gaming, an overclocked Ryzen 7 2700 provided a statistically insignificant ~1 FPS advantage over the 2700X in 99th percentile frame rates. In essence, both tuned processors offer a very similar experience through our suite. It's unfortunate, then, that you need to buy an aftermarket cooler in order to overclock Ryzen 7 2700 to its potential. So much for the $30 savings versus Ryzen 7 2700X.</p><p>That means you get more value from AMD's flagship than the stepped-down Ryzen 7 2700. In fact, at stock settings, even a Core i5-8400 is roughly equivalent to the 2700. And it costs $110 less. And you can drop it into affordable motherboards. Intel's stock cooler is fine, too. You get the picture.</p><p>Similar trends surfaced in our desktop productivity tests. Ryzen 7 2700's frequency deficit resulted in notably less performance than a stock Ryzen 7 2700X across the board. Although Ryzen 7 2700 <em>is </em>faster than Intel's Core i5-8400 and -8600K in threaded workloads thanks to its eight-core design, AMD's own Ryzen 7 2700X is more compelling if you're interested in those types of applications.</p><p>If you tune the memory, the Ryzen 7 2700X doesn't gain much from overclocking the cores. That means you can pair the 2700X and its stock cooler with a capable memory kit and get impressive performance. In contrast, you'll have to invest in a more capable cooler to achieve the same level of performance with the Ryzen 7 2700. That largely negates the 2700's scant $30 price advantage.</p><p>Gone are the days of AMD selling its X-series Ryzen CPUs at higher prices and without thermal solutions. Newer models like the Ryzen 7 2700X only cost a bit more than the 2700, plus they also include a heat sink and fan. We'd rather spend the extra $30. Of course, gamers might want to go another direction. Intel's Core i5-8400 costs less and is every bit as quick in our favorite titles. And then there's the Ryzen 5 2600X, which is surprisingly fast across a broader range of workloads and much more affordable.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Review: Spectre Patches Weigh In ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-2600x,5579.html</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ AMD's Ryzen 5 2600X comes with all of the goodness of AMD's new Zen+ architecture, let's see how it stacks up against Intel's finest. ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">gZWKPwGXvsXSjEHppMzm7n</guid>
                                                                                                <enclosure url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kyuhaB8ZPeNE6ikCCpdTfk-1280-80.jpg" type="image/jpeg" length="0"></enclosure>
                                                                        <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                <updated>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:30:17 +0000</updated>
                                                                                                                                            <category><![CDATA[CPUs]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[PC Components]]></category>
                                                                                                <author><![CDATA[ palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) ]]></author>                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ Paul Alcorn ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                    <dc:source><![CDATA[ https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RZRmFeQfPy3etHjBQitbGW.jpeg ]]></dc:source>
                                                                <dc:description><![CDATA[ &lt;p&gt;As a teenager, Paul scraped up enough money to buy a 486-powered PC with a turbo button (yes, a turbo button). Back when floppies were still popular he was already chasing after the fastest spinners for his personal computer, which led him down the long and winding storage road, covering enterprise storage. His current focus is on consumer processors, though he still keeps a close eye on the latest storage news. In his spare time, you’ll find Paul hanging out with his kids or indulging his love of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.&lt;/p&gt; ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <media:content type="image/jpeg" url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kyuhaB8ZPeNE6ikCCpdTfk-1280-80.jpg">
                                                            <media:credit><![CDATA[null]]></media:credit>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    </media:content>
                                                    <media:thumbnail url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kyuhaB8ZPeNE6ikCCpdTfk-1280-80.jpg" />
                                                                                                                                                                    <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <h2 id="ryzen-to-the-mainstream">Ryzen To The Mainstream </h2><p>AMD's 2000-series Ryzen CPUs are already available, challenging the Coffee Lake-based Core line-up from Intel. As we found in our <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571.html">Ryzen 7 2700X review</a>, a host of improvements made possible by 12nm manufacturing, such as higher frequencies and Precision Boost 2, add more performance in threaded apps. Meanwhile, lower system memory and cache latencies augment AMD's showing in lightly-threaded apps like games. Unlocked multipliers, backward compatibility with older Socket AM4 motherboards, a beefy bundled cooler, and a $330 price tag combine to leave us impressed. The Ryzen 7 2700X offers a great alternative to Intel's Core i7-8700K, which costs more, doesn't come with a thermal solution, and drops into more expensive motherboards (at least if you want to overclock).</p><p>Similarly, Ryzen 5 2600X targets Intel's enthusiast-oriented Core i5-8600K, leveraging similar advancements and a more attractive $230 price tag. As we'll see, it's even faster than the first-gen flagship Ryzen 7 1800X in many workloads.</p><h2 id="but-first-spectre-variant-2">But First, Spectre Variant 2</h2><p>Unfortunately, due to a lack of communication from AMD, we weren't told that the company had rolled its Spectre Variant 2 patch into shipping X470 platforms. As a result, our Ryzen 7 2700X launch day coverage didn't include Intel CPUs tested with their corresponding patches. Today's review does, however, feature results generated on Intel-based systems with the latest Spectre microcode updates.</p><h2 id="ryzen-5-2600x">Ryzen 5 2600X</h2><p>Ryzen 2000-series processors, otherwise known by their Pinnacle Ridge code name, are based on the <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-zen-cpu-microarchitecture,32540.html">same basic Zen core design</a> as previous-gen models (though AMD now uses Zen+ nomenclature to reference the architecture's various improvements). The CPUs still utilize a <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-review,5014-2.html">dual-CCX configuration, tied together with Infinity Fabric</a>, yielding eight physical cores. The flagship Ryzen 7 2700X comes with all eight of its cores active. For Ryzen 5 2600X, AMD turns two off, creating a six-core, 12-thread configuration with an unlocked ratio multiplier.</p><p>As mentioned, Ryzen 5 2600X sells for $230, replacing <span>the $220 Ryzen 5 1600X. </span>It slots into the gap between Core i5-8600K and the Core i5-8400, forcing the chip to contend with <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-coffee-lake-300-series-chipset,36791.html">Intel's recently-announced Core i5-8600</a>. While we don't have that model in our lab yet, we do have the two nearest Coffee Lake-based competitors in today's benchmark charts.</p><p>What do you get, performance-wise, for the extra $10? Ryzen 5 2600X <span>sports the same 3.6 GHz base clock rate and a slightly higher 4.2 GHz Precision Boost 2 frequency (+200 MHz) than 1600X. That might seem minor, but as our benchmarks show, the gains are quite pronounced in threaded workloads. Like its predecessor, the 2600X also features 16MB of L3 cache and a 95W TDP.<br/></span></p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ></td><td  >AMD Ryzen 7 2700X</td><td  >AMD Ryzen 7 1800X</td><td  >AMD Ryzen 7 2700</td><td  >AMD Ryzen 5 1600X</td><td  >Ryzen 5 1600</td><td  ><strong>AMD Ryzen 5 2600X</strong></td><td  ><strong>AMD Ryzen 5 2600</strong></td><td  >Intel Core i5-8600K</td><td  >Intel Core i5-8600</td><td  >Intel Core i5-8400</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>MSRP</strong></td><td  >$329</td><td  >$349</td><td  >$299</td><td  >$219</td><td  >$189</td><td  >$229</td><td  >$199</td><td  >$257</td><td  >$224</td><td  >$182</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cores/Threads</strong></td><td  >8/16</td><td  >8/16</td><td  >8/16</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/6</td><td  >6/6</td><td  >6/6</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>TDP</strong></td><td  >105W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >65W</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Base Freq. (GHz)</strong></td><td  >3.7</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.2</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.2</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.4</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.1</td><td  >2.8</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)</strong></td><td  >4.3</td><td  >4.1</td><td  >4.1</td><td  >4.0</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >4.2</td><td  >3.9</td><td  >4.3</td><td  >4.3</td><td  >4.0</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cache (L3)</strong></td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >9MB</td><td  >9MB</td><td  >9MB</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Unlocked Multiplier</strong></td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >No</td><td  >No</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cooler</strong></td><td  >105W Wraith Prism (LED)</td><td  >-</td><td  >95W Wraith Spire (LED)</td><td  >-</td><td  >95W Wraith Spire</td><td  >95W Wraith Spire</td><td  >65W Wraith Stealth</td><td  >-</td><td  >Intel</td><td  >Intel</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>Although AMD didn't include thermal solutions with its original Ryzen X-series processors, the company does bundle coolers with its pricier models now. On one hand, it's nice that the 95W Wraith Spire cooler neatly matches the 2600X's thermal design power. On the other, we're not expecting much overclocking headroom from the combination.</p><p>Ryzen 5 2600X can drop into either new X470 or older 300-series motherboards. As usual, AMD allows you to overclock on value-minded B-series boards, too. And even though 400-series B-models aren't available yet, they'll undoubtedly offer a lower-priced alternative for overclocking.</p><p>Officially, the Ryzen 5 2600X supports up to DDR4-2933 memory, just like Ryzen 7 2700X. This trumps Coffee Lake's Intel-specified DDR4-2666 ceiling (<a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571-2.html">with a few caveats</a>). AMD also sticks with Indium solder between Ryzen 5's die and heat spreader, improving thermal transfer performance. And as we mentioned in our Ryzen 7 2700X review, these new CPUs also include StorMI Technology, which is a software-based tiering solution that blends the low price and high capacity of a hard drive with the speed of an SSD, 3D XPoint (including <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-optane-ssd-800p,5497.html">Intel's Optane parts</a>), or even up to 2GB of RAM.</p><h2 id="precision-boost-2-and-xfr2-2">Precision Boost 2 and XFR2</h2><p>In a nutshell, AMD is leveraging GlobalFoundries' 12nm process to enhance its design, rather than shrink it. The enhancements offer higher performance or lower power consumption at any given frequency, giving AMD headroom for other improvements.</p><p>The company's previous-gen Ryzen processors have Precision Boost, which is similar to Intel's Turbo Boost technology, and eXtended Frequency Range (XFR), capable of delivering a frequency uplift when your cooling solution has thermal headroom to spare.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/dP5hpEZQKxe9nAP9Zd2WJ7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NYSEggBR5g7BcaEzuSpik9.jpg" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The new Precision Boost 2 (PB2) and XFR2 algorithms improve performance in threaded workloads by raising the frequency of any number of cores. AMD doesn't share a list of specific multi-core Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 bins because the opportunistic algorithms accelerate to different clock rates based on temperature, current, and load.</p><p><span> AMD gave us a graph of the PB2 frequencies for Ryzen 7 2700X, but we followed up with our own measurements to compare the current and previous-gen Ryzen 5 models. As you can see, Ryzen 5 2600X offers more robust multi-core frequencies than its predecessor, and our Ryzen 7 2700X measurements largely mirror AMD's. We tested both CPUs with AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive active. The Ryzen 7 2700X does have a higher TDP rating that some older motherboards may struggle with, so <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571-2.html">PB2 performance will vary</a> based upon the power delivery subsystem.<br/></span></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="8f103f28-167f-4177-a017-f775eb3a9177">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Processor-Wraith-Cooler/dp/B07B428M7F/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Ryzen 7 2700X" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:83.03%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/c2cT8QyxBHDJ3zenoyjwN3.jpg" alt=""><span class='featured__label hero__label'> </span></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 7 2700X</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="49be5ab8-560f-4752-913c-a936800de481">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Processor-Wraith-Cooler/dp/B07B428V2L/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Ryzen 5 2600X" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:82.55%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NGCRsMpYvNzAhf8vPeWere.jpg" alt=""><span class='featured__label hero__label'> </span></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 5 2600X</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div><h2 id="patching-up-overclocking-amp-test-setup">Patching Up, Overclocking & Test Setup</h2><h2 id="patching-up">Patching Up </h2><p>The Spectre and Meltdown security vulnerabilities impose overhead that affect performance, but it's the Spectre Variant 2 patches that incur the largest penalties. We've been waiting for AMD and Intel to release their respective updates, leveling the playing field. AMD gave no indication in its press material that the X470 motherboards used in our Ryzen 7 2700X review already had Spectre 2 mitigations built-in. But hours before launch, we learned that the patches were present. At that point, we didn't have enough time to test with Intel's corresponding microcode.</p><p>In our 2700X review, the test rigs included Meltdown And Spectre Variant 1 mitigations. Spectre Variant 2 requires both motherboard firmware/microcode and operating system patches, though. We had already installed the operating system updates for Variant 2 on our Intel-based platforms, so we only lacked the fourth and final piece: new microcode.</p><p>There are two options for applying this microcode. One is a Windows KB that allows the operating system to load microcode during boot-up. The other is a motherboard firmware update. We used the Windows KB to install patches on our Z270-based platform, providing a true measure of pre- and post-patch performance.</p><p>Faster processors suffer less from the Spectre Variant 2 updates. This creates a conundrum for us and our Z370-based platform. In previous reviews, we noticed that Intel's Core i7-8700 was consistently faster than the more expensive Core i7-8700K on MSI and Gigabyte motherboards. We <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-cpu,5252-4.html">disclosed this during our launch coverage</a>. The issue becomes relevant today because MSI's latest firmware update, which also includes the Spectre Variant 2 microcode, fixes most of the performance disparities we observed. As we suspected, the problem seems attributable to the Core i7-8700K. It's now faster in several games, performing the way we originally expected. So, on this motherboard, we're using new firmware instead of the Windows-based patch since it fixes our Core i7-8700K issues. That means our Coffee Lake-based CPUs don't correctly reflect pre- and post-patch performance. Instead, allow those results to serve as a general indication of competitive deltas.</p><p>In any case, with the exception of our AMD X370-based motherboards, all of the platforms in today's review are fully patched. The company hasn't given us a time frame for securing its previous-gen chipsets, but you can bet that we'll follow up with benchmark results once a Spectre Variant 2 patch becomes available.</p><h2 id="overclocking-3">Overclocking</h2><p>We ran our gaming and application tests in the U.S. lab, while power/thermal measurements were collected in our German lab.</p><p>In the U.S. lab, we paired our Ryzen 5 2600X with Corsair's H115i cooler for overclocking. This allowed us to maintain a 4.2 GHz all-core frequency at 1.3875V Vcore, 1.2V SoC voltage, and default Load Line Calibration settings. These are the same settings used on the Ryzen 7 2700X, albeit with a slight 0.009V Vcore boost to ensure stability.</p><p>First-gen Ryzen processors don't have much memory overclocking headroom, so we're still testing tuned X370 platforms at DDR4-3200. The X470 chipset is remarkably stable at higher data rates with both 2000-series Ryzen CPUs installed. So, we settled on DDR4-3466 with 14-14-14-34 timings. We also ran our overclocked Intel processors at DDR4-3466.</p><h2 id="precision-boost-overdrive-2">Precision Boost Overdrive</h2><p>AMD hasn't shared much information on this pending feature, which increases the maximum boost voltage and boost duration. We attempted to disable Precision Boost Overdrive as we tested for our Ryzen 7 2700X review, but didn't observe a performance difference one way or the other. Now we know the feature wasn't toggling correctly due to an issue with the board. Instead, it remained enabled throughout our benchmarking.</p><p>Precision Boost Overdrive is an AMD-sanctioned feature, unlike the multi-core enhancements you often find in Intel-based motherboards. Because this is a standard capability for Ryzen 2000-series processors, we leave it enabled.</p><h2 id="msi-x470-gaming-m7-ac-2">MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC</h2><p><span class="notranslate">Our MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC has a PCI Express 3.0 slot with a x16 link, a slot with a x8 connection, and another PCI Express 2.0 slot with a four-lane link for graphics cards. Its </span><span class="notranslate">four RAM slots support DDR4-2933 and can scale up quite a bit higher through overclocking.</span></p><p><span class="notranslate">The motherboard also provides two M.2 slots with PCIe connectivity.</span><span class="notranslate"> The I/O panel has a USB 3.1 Type C connector.</span><span class="notranslate"> The </span><span class="notranslate">USB 3.1 and USB 3.1 Gen 2 support fast charging for smartphones and tablets.</span><span class="notranslate"> If RGB is your thing, MSI has you covered. T</span><span class="notranslate">he integrated RGB Mystic lighting allows customizable effects with several software-controlled zones.</span><span class="notranslate"><br/></span></p><h2 id="comparison-products-5">Comparison Products </h2>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="0122049c-6163-4620-b0fd-b76e0bda898b">            <a href="http://www.tkqlhce.com/click-8900246-12920453?sid=tomshardware-&url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117824" data-model-name="Core i5-8400" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:108.91%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Mbp7fKeJrnqTAagSTBP399.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i5-8400</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="f26d68fa-fd80-4ad6-b2f3-526977dd83ef">            <a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117825" data-model-name="Core i5-8600K" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:120.30%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ovaurhrrbXkvAC9XyKvdJU.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i5-8600K</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="7bbf8fae-b90a-48a9-b706-eca3f1d7d599">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Desktop-Processor-i7-7700K-BX80677I77700K/dp/B01MXSI216/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Core i7-7700K" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:128.84%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uXuLfgK33H8rdH2AUffqUk.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i7-7700K</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div><h2 id="test-systems-4">Test Systems</h2><div ><table><thead><tr><th  colspan="2"><strong>Test System & Configuration</strong></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Hardware</strong></td><td  ><strong><strong><strong>Germany </strong></strong>AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)</strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466<strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):</strong>Intel Core i5-8600K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2666<strong>AMD Socket </strong><strong>AM4 Workstation (300-Series)</strong>AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600X, Ryzen 5 1400MSI X370 Tomahawk4x 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 <strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)</strong>Intel Core i7-7700KMSI Z270 Gaming 72x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2400 and 3200<strong>All Systems</strong>GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming)Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System)2x 960GB Toshiba OCZ TR150 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Power SupplyWindows 10 Pro (Creators Update)<strong><strong>U.S.AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)</strong></strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466<strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):</strong>Intel Core i7-8700K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466<strong>AMD Socket AM4 (300-Series)</strong>AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700X, 1700, Ryzen 5 1600XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3200<strong><span>Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)</span></strong>Intel Core i7-7700K MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400<strong>All</strong> EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703 - All Spectre and Meltdown mitigations</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cooling</strong></td><td  ><strong>Germany</strong>Alphacool Eiszeit 2000 ChillerAlphacool Eisblock XPXThermal Grizzly Kryonaut (For Cooler Switch)<strong>U.S.</strong>Corsair H115i</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Monitor</strong></td><td  >Eizo EV3237-BK</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>PC Case</strong></td><td  >Lian Li PC-T70 with Extension Kit and Mods Configurations: Open Benchtable, Closed Case</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Power Consumption Measurement</strong></td><td  >Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100 kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500 MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Thermal Measurement</strong></td><td  >1x Optris PI640 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Acoustic Measurement</strong></td><td  >NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="vrmark-3dmark-amp-aots-escalation-5">VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation</h2><h2 id="vrmark-amp-3dmark-4">VRMark & 3DMark </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7njLmU4V9WdRQTpUyNTEhR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2pi4uXr3JnsUn7NvBm56LB.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DFHxEZPQuZWnQknUA5pLWH.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>These are busy charts with the addition of our retested Intel platforms, including the Spectre Variant 2 microcode patches. At stock settings, the Ryzen 5 2600X outperforms its overclocked predecessor across the board, which is especially meaningful in the lightly-threaded VRMark workload. Overclocking yields significant gains in synthetic gaming benchmarks, which don't necessarily translate to the rest of our benchmark suite.</p><p>Several of the patched Intel processors do lose performance compared to before the updates. This is particularly apparent in VRMark on Intel's Core i7-8700K, while other tests reflect minimal regression. Meanwhile, the Core i5-8400 and -8600K give us mixed results. Core i7-7700K is a more representative measure of pre- and post-patch performance, and it takes a healthy dive in VRMark as well (verified several times by removing and reinstalling the OS-based Spectre patch).</p><h2 id="ashes-of-the-singularity-escalation-5">Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eLEZAd5njhD7qm8LBnG7DP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sf8ALTVZUwECBWTCQk2nGN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/u7iKMypvLDcPC4xBsKhgdS.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Eci5ZbggCkzVpMQrifppma.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UyQbYNrbUyxT3VwG85RfS3.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vPreZMhUMLW5xUGcWNYhqE.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Ryzen 5 2600X is clearly superior to its predecessor in threaded titles. After all, the stock 2600X beats an overclocked 1600X. Those gains propel the Ryzen 5 up the chart, where it matches a stock Core i7-8700K.</p><p>Flip over to the album's next slide, which includes Intel CPUs before and after we patched their platforms. The Core i7-7700K loses a few frames per second in our retest, falling outside of this consistent benchmark's margin of error. Aside from the Core i5-8400's gains, which remind us that firmware updates sometimes fine-tune performance, too, most of the Intel CPUs land within the run-to-run variance we expect to see. </p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-amp-ai-dawn-of-war-iii-5">Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III</h2><h2 id="civilization-vi-ai-test-5">Civilization VI AI Test</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:75.00%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UZEEDekrDNxk6gEDBQjATT.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UZEEDekrDNxk6gEDBQjATT.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="834" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UZEEDekrDNxk6gEDBQjATT.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The Ryzen 5 2600X represents a nice step forward for AMD, particularly since Intel's processors typically lead in this test due to their per-core performance advantage.</p><p>A few of the processors exhibit slight regressions post-patch, but nothing outside of the variances we'd expect.  </p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-test-5">Civilization VI Graphics Test</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/oiMyzPHtGDNb2e2Lyhan4K.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/U9M4PGQKAGPqPww9MtYcTB.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vMkCLafYBt3fxm9kDLPK8n.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vTyjtbJAwvFEUg4hBdxcGT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zDprcyp2nPqrTxLsVXZX3Y.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/R6vgtMrMoVvEEh8gz28kPH.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>An overclocked Ryzen 5 2600X beats the stock Ryzen 7 2700X, which should excite value-seekers.</p><p>Then again, Intel's Core i5-8400 slips past the tuned Ryzen 5 in this test, yielding better performance at a lower price (and despite a locked ratio multiplier).</p><h2 id="warhammer-40-000-dawn-of-war-iii-5">Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/egeHx5WEjK6ugd6ZujbYpS.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3pv4f5jSBwCJswQrUdBnUo.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YK8LW6uPrBgdUURxkGaMsm.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YxAGfUoxu9oBhQbGGQNdw9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/s3iWx9EHNHFgA8tjvJWVH9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/EBj84HXwwsnLv5tgNuMtYf.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Dawn of War</em> finds the tuned Coffee Lake-based CPUs at the top of our chart. Even the fastest Ryzen (overclocked, no less) lands behind a stock Core i7-7700K.</p><p>Interestingly, the Coffee Lake CPUs enjoy slight gains after we patch them, while Core i7-7700K doesn't change much.  </p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="far-cry-primal-gta-v-amp-hitman-4">Far Cry Primal, GTA: V & Hitman</h2><h2 id="far-cry-primal-4">Far Cry Primal </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nb869QrBhFQvCTSMRgdyRG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/fhyei95gymgRTC53AzMUhZ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iLUA37jiCAus6YstNZHbkk.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZsZtF8AVNXs3zWYhQMtSVV.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GkJSSuvRnRegTGzrZeBpAG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uRH6F37mEBiKg5RdrBFdxX.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Ryzen 5 2600X nearly matches Intel's Core i7-8700K at stock clock rates. But tuning propels the chip ahead of an overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X and into contention with Core i5-8600K at 4.9 GHz. Clearly, this title responds well to physical core count, favoring platforms without SMT enabled.</p><h2 id="grand-theft-auto-v-5">Grand Theft Auto V</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/37jP8mExYhGuXQ7FQThWoC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/h8yWj7hYaSqCi5WJGwqcMj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zhyCwmxzCHYpUDVk9V4Eh9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yczVBNG7vYrxdFm4X24mWY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NE2nFBpFaqJKA2pGTMBefA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/pWAyvABWkUtzHX7GzU85bh.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>It's no surprise to see Intel's processors dominate our <em>Grand Theft Auto V</em> charts. An overclocked Ryzen 5 2600X essentially ties the stock Core i7-7700K, while Core i5-8400 stands out again for its higher performance and lower price point.</p><p>The post-patch Core i7-8700K averages 9 FPS-higher in <em>GTA V.</em> This is one of the games where -8700K historically lagged the slower Core i7-8700, so it looks like motherboard firmware fixed a few issues. We also see an improvement from the Core i5-8400.</p><h2 id="hitman-5">Hitman </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BabLDJjHoVkmY3G9qNuCC8.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LXaEY6aEm6MahMdwm5tUMC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NK3iS9QXsKsHV9CoZRDsmL.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/47jcKkHXrBjEDPdf6pAgjP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CdY6BxEXXwfi8MkBqzePei.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ksz62BH6NbeP3SvtPtytEm.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>A recent update added a frame rate cap to <em>Hitman</em>, causing most of our configurations to reflect a graphics bottleneck. It's no surprise, then, that an overclocked Ryzen 5 2600X nearly matches the fastest Intel CPUs.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="shadow-of-war-amp-project-cars-2-5">Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2</h2><h2 id="middle-earth-shadow-of-war-5">Middle-earth: Shadow Of War</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/fXxsEsXAa2uRMKCD55RDBK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ygoUCSDea9o2BfEc6pk4F9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QNtSGey6iozyQK7nkgxfJH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/g4ta6b69YL4o3nbxo6Dd2K.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/aqw9gTjjftsm5qcYDqHxwT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/K3iyFU5irFHvmW9qVnuDi9.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Ryzen 5 2600X beats the overclocked Ryzen 7 1800X, and tuning propels it to within 0.5 FPS of the fastest CPU.</p><p>Intel's Core i5-8400 is less expensive and tends to outperform the 2600X in many games, but the 2600X does lead in this one. Aside from the Core i5-8400, we observe lower average frame rates from the post-patch Intel processors, though the variances only amount to one or two frames per second.</p><h2 id="project-cars-2-5">Project CARS 2</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CgcFVc9RPAt4WukLw6VZqj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/oxRMkF4gJnGY8kY4uKDKaA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/chTYug9pLE2QLioRpWdwCU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/M53ugEUe3EqRvsCvAFNmCF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YjP8zGAaiJnU3wKWtbnhYH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/pruWwnc9azhtYgsjDoGukc.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Ryzen 5 2600X delivers a commendable performance in <em>Project CARS 2</em>, but it lags the less expensive Core i5-8400.</p><p>Aside from the Core i7-8700K's and i5-8400's performance gains, we don't significant variations related to Spectre mitigations.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="office-amp-productivity-5">Office & Productivity</h2><h2 id="adobe-creative-cloud-5">Adobe Creative Cloud</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BrTQPDTp9rqYbrm2j6csuF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/b63wnE26tm38HtNhQNsnWK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/S6tjunNqXzscrbqccvbdd3.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BCCp2rtcs7F3ZobhWtJf9M.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/qFzELxzQkSS6xJkr42KkPJ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4S3S8QE3cs4WtnZU3YE6wA.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The stock Ryzen 5 2600X trails most of AMD's first-gen Ryzen CPUs, notably lagging behind the previous-gen Ryzen 5 1600X. We reran this benchmark several times to verify its results, and the outcome is repeatable. But given the performance observed in other tests, PCMark's Creative Cloud component may be an outlier.</p><p>Although we didn't see much performance variation from the patches in our game testing, that changes drastically in our Adobe Creative Cloud suite. Every Intel processor's overall score takes a significant haircut (the Core i7-8700K drops ~9%, while the Core i5-8400 drops ~10%).</p><h2 id="web-browser-5">Web Browser</h2><p>The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xmeicgbei7WSKy2hiWhcjL.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TL3hwoZw6AGm9k4VrL9sPh.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xUU8TLkbKSokhpxwQY9vFA.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>AMD's processors typically lag Intel's in Web browser benchmarks due to their lower per-core performance. The Ryzen 5 2600X is competitive with Intel's Core i5-8400 in this test. But as we noted in our Ryzen 7 2700X review, overclocking actually results in lower scores during lightly-threaded tasks. That's a bit more surprising in this case because, as we pointed out on the first page, Ryzen 5 2600X sustains up to 4.2 GHz on a single core, which is the same frequency as our all-core overclock. XFR2 contributes an extra boost during sporadic workloads though, and that's likely what we're seeing here.</p><p>The MotionMark benchmarks, which emphasize graphics performance (rather than JavaScript), are also sensitive to CPU clock rates. Ryzen 5 2600X isn't as competitive compared to the Intel models, reminding us that AMD still lags what it comes to IPC throughput.</p><p>Again, we see performance regressions from Intel's processors in these workloads, which we measured with a Spectre-patched version of Firefox.  </p><h2 id="productivity-5">Productivity</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ibkoKJ2TpyUz6dw5UQt7SZ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vQc7XMGYSrY3oNLX2PK5mJ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6s5Q6bECv6WMcMehtUtW3L.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/j7BWeia3882bPAT7Xc3kBh.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ni4w3qD3KqyxPiubK8MZvB.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. Initially, we thought that'd be bad news for Intel's CPUs. After all, the security mitigations have an intense impact on I/O operations. Surprisingly, though, we actually recorded higher results from the Intel-based platforms. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 5 2600X beats AMD's first-gen Ryzen CPUs, but trails the Core i5-8400.</p><p>Our video conferencing workload measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. Ryzen processors perform well in this test, joining an overclocked Core i7-8700K at the top of the chart. At stock settings, the Ryzen 5 2600X handily dispatches Intel's Core i5-8400.</p><p>The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, so Ryzen 7 2700X naturally takes a lead. The Ryzen 5 2600X performs well given its price point. And the Intel CPUs all take a hit after we get them patched.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="rendering-encoding-amp-compression-5">Rendering, Encoding & Compression</h2><h2 id="rendering-5">Rendering </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/hbHhKGQ2qzqLhWj73hFJuB.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yBNqW3ihayiBxP8YopJKnV.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/taVrircKXii7Z5cDWZfUpg.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KoDvH5dmZZzQsEt3aMSsuY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2zqv9PRtdfoY82DQG4FAfe.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4xpipzAXJU55SYfkCjdLoK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/v4joAcwPFjRZzjdxU3kmCC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/dDcKZ47DhaxCgNnJ5RULfF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eNydz6fUFYMdybte55wXUZ.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Threaded rendering workloads favor Ryzen's SMT-enabled cores. Ryzen 5 2600X slots in right where we'd expect it to land, while Intel's processors suffer slight performance hits after installing the Spectre mitigation patches. </p><h2 id="encoding-amp-compression-5">Encoding & Compression </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HzGCigTc4uuamgtKG6NN6P.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Sau9jQmaNnoBQLGBbZUr3V.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4KyRnnwGRTGQCPmwTBHzKJ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eFaADwFdAXekT9YfoM4EcW.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZSnwhfLDvKsnydcnV74DR7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2NGG62svK3HUrP3NNvZ2NR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6ob88byeYMKa6mkG5BzD7F.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>LAME is the quintessential example of a single-threaded workload, normally favoring Intel's per-core performance advantage. AMD's 2000-series Ryzen CPUs go a long way in closing the gap by offering better per-core performance than their predecessors.</p><p>Our threaded compression and decompression tests adsorb data directly from system memory, removing storage from the equation. The Ryzen 5 2600X fares well during the test, easily beating Intel's Core i5-8400 and -8600K. Given <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-performance-meltdown-spectre-intel-amd,5457-2.html">Windows' new dual page table addressing structure</a> that prevents Meltdown-based attacks, we expected more performance overhead after the patches. However, the company's latest processors have a PCID (Post-Context Identifiers) feature that accelerates page table translations. As a result, older Core CPUs without the PCID feature are likely affected more than the ones we're testing. </p><p>There's a larger delta between Intel and AMD processors during our HandBrake x265 test compared to the x264 benchmark due to its heavier distribution of AVX instructions. The 2600X slots in where we'd expect given its six cores with SMT technology.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="final-analysis-4">Final Analysis</h2><p>AMD’s Ryzen 5 2600X isn’t quite as impressive as the higher-end Ryzen 7 2700X, but it does offer a solid mixture of performance and value that's well-suited to many different workloads. Whereas professionals might be more interested in the 2700X's eight cores, gamers on a budget will want to check out the 2600X. After all, saving money on other system components is critical at a time when you're certain to pay a premium for discrete graphics.</p><p>In the chart below, we plot gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99<sup>th</sup> percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then convert into a frame-per-second measurement. We also have price-to-performance charts that get split up to include CPUs-only and extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370). The Intel test results reflect our patched configurations.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QKpKdiSKAN2YQCVoM3dNve.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/skUzqN7QR5p3CwUsjqbLyY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LtosqbVjj3tFaMSs82MmXV.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8nmx38orqbK9a9TjHVALmQ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HpAojDQ9NVVzdkBhgXVwYK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HkW9km3KCCvEC7rDR6kB2e.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TUzwk5voXA4hJnqu2KKNi.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Games show the Ryzen 5 2600X offering a universal improvement over AMD's previous-gen Ryzen 5 1600X. Unfortunately, we see limited gains from overclocking, though that's just as well given this family's meager headroom. More important is that Ryzen 5 2600X beats the Ryzen 7 1800X throughout our suite.</p><p>Intel's Core i5-8600K is also in the 2600X’s crosshairs; AMD takes aim with a significantly lower price, a bundled thermal solution, and compatibility with less expensive motherboards. If you're not worried about overclocking, though, the Core i5-8400 is an even better buy for gaming. It offers nearly the same performance as the 2600X at a ~$50 discount. The i5-8400 drops into value-oriented B-series motherboards and comes with a stock cooler/fan, too.</p><p>Although we're big fans of the Core i5-8400 for entertainment, Ryzen 5 2600X is a smarter all-around value when it has the change to stretch its six cores and 12 threads. The processor distances itself from the i5-8400 in our rendering, encoding, compression, and decompression apps. It even challenges the eight-core Ryzen 7 1700X in several tests, particularly after tuning. That highlights the improvements borne of the Ryzen 2000-series’ enhanced multi-core boost algorithms and lower memory/cache latency.</p><p>Like all of AMD’s processors, the Ryzen 5 2600X comes with an unlocked ratio multiplier. AMD is pushing the frequency/voltage curve to its limits, so we didn’t experience massive gains in some mundane workloads. However, we did see more of a benefit with the 2600X in heavily-threaded tasks compared to the Ryzen 7 2700X. That’s largely due to the 2600X’s lower multi-core boost frequencies.</p><p>We wish AMD was ready with its B450-series motherboards at launch time. But you can still pair the Ryzen 5 2600X with a capable 300-series model.</p><p>The Spectre patches did take some wind out of Intel’s sails in many of our application tests, but the impact varies by application. In most cases, the regressions aren’t severe enough to change our recommendations. Still, it's always disappointing to observe performance stepping backward. Luckily for Intel, gaming wasn't affected much.</p><p>Intel beefed up its Coffee Lake-based Core i5s by adding 50% more cores. Up against the Ryzen 5 1600X, we couldn't help but acknowledge Intel's great performance and generally better compatibility with existing games. This time, however, AMD brings the heat in our benchmarks, while most of its optimization-oriented issues are ancient history. If gaming is your <em>only </em>concern, save some cash and pick up a Core i5-8400. But we think you’ll be happier with the Ryzen 5 2600X, which has more resources to handle general desktop workloads with ease.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review: Redefining Ryzen ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571.html</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ AMD claims the Ryzen 7 2700X brings up to a 20% productivity boost, and is near-equivalent in gaming to Intel's Coffee Lake chips. Does it live up to the hype? ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">FkVWnVNjecFK6NRcDeHUyD</guid>
                                                                                                <enclosure url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DjTvUxuaE4ry2dRpHwUtuR-1280-80.jpg" type="image/jpeg" length="0"></enclosure>
                                                                        <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                <updated>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:30:14 +0000</updated>
                                                                                                                                            <category><![CDATA[CPUs]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[PC Components]]></category>
                                                                                                <author><![CDATA[ palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) ]]></author>                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ Paul Alcorn ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                    <dc:source><![CDATA[ https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RZRmFeQfPy3etHjBQitbGW.jpeg ]]></dc:source>
                                                                <dc:description><![CDATA[ &lt;p&gt;As a teenager, Paul scraped up enough money to buy a 486-powered PC with a turbo button (yes, a turbo button). Back when floppies were still popular he was already chasing after the fastest spinners for his personal computer, which led him down the long and winding storage road, covering enterprise storage. His current focus is on consumer processors, though he still keeps a close eye on the latest storage news. In his spare time, you’ll find Paul hanging out with his kids or indulging his love of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.&lt;/p&gt; ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <media:content type="image/jpeg" url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DjTvUxuaE4ry2dRpHwUtuR-1280-80.jpg">
                                                            <media:credit><![CDATA[null]]></media:credit>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    </media:content>
                                                    <media:thumbnail url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DjTvUxuaE4ry2dRpHwUtuR-1280-80.jpg" />
                                                                                                                                                                    <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <h2 id="redefining-ryzen">Redefining Ryzen</h2><p>AMD's return to prominence last year found it rolling out a long stream of CPUs that pressured Intel in almost every segment of the desktop PC market. Even after Intel countered with dramatic adjustments to its processor portfolio, AMD continues gobbling up market share. Even in the face of stiff competition, AMD says it enjoys as much as 50% of CPU sales to DIYers on sites like Newegg and Amazon.</p><p>And <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-docs-dual-core-cannon-lake-10nm,36504.html">a slow transition to 10nm manufacturing</a> continues to leave Intel vulnerable. AMD is now ready to evolve its Zen architecture with a round of new processors. To be sure, the improvements they offer are iterative. The low-hanging fruit that made it possible for first-gen Ryzen to compete are already baked in. These chips do incorporate some notable advantages, though.</p><p>To begin, second-generation Ryzen processors are manufactured using an optimized 12nm LP node that promises performance and efficiency gains compared to the original Ryzen's 14nm LPP process. AMD also tweaked the Zen architecture, now dubbed Zen+, to support higher frequencies, more sophisticated multi-core boost rates, and faster memory/caches. Overall, the company claims that its 2000-series facilitates nearly equivalent gaming performance compared to similarly-priced Core CPUs, plus a 20% advantage in threaded workloads.</p><p>AMD certainly hasn't forgotten its core message: more cores and features for less money. The second-gen Ryzen processors are priced competitively, all models come with beefy stock coolers, and they are backward compatible with older Socket AM4 motherboards. AMD even throws in free caching software to sweeten the deal. It all starts with silicon though, so let's take a look.</p><h2 id="ryzen-7-2700x">Ryzen 7 2700X</h2><p>Ryzen 2000-series processors, otherwise known by their "Pinnacle Ridge" code name, are based on the <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-zen-cpu-microarchitecture,32540.html">same basic Zen core design</a> as previous-gen models. But they benefit from 12nm manufacturing, along with targeted tweaks to improve cache and memory latency. The company says its resulting Zen+ architecture delivers up to a 3% boost in IPC (instructions per cycle) throughput.</p><p>The CPUs still utilize a <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-review,5014-2.html">dual-CCX configuration tied, together with Infinity Fabric</a>. Not surprisingly, then, they're divided into eight-core, 16-thread Ryzen 7 and six-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 families, both with 16MB of L3 cache. Like the Ryzens that came before, all 2000-series models boast unlocked ratio multipliers for easy overclocking. Intel, in comparison, still charges a premium for its overclockable K-series SKUs.</p><p>AMD separates its the 2000-series stack into high-performance X-series models and their non-X counterparts. But it shrinks the Ryzen 7 family from three models to two. Ryzen 7 2700X would seem to suggest a Ryzen 7 1700X replacement. However, it actually replaces the flagship Ryzen 7 1800X. AMD claims that its 2700X offers up to 12% more performance than Ryzen 7 1800X in threaded applications. Much of that improvement comes from a 100 MHz-higher base clock and 200 MHz of additional boost frequency (though multiple other refinements also contribute).</p><p><span>While the Pinnacle Ridge processors drop into 400-series motherboards, AMD is only releasing its X470 chipset at launch time. </span><span><span>We still don't have a release date for the less expensive B450- and A420-based motherboards. </span></span><span><span><span><span>As the company originally promised, it continues supporting Socket AM4 (and purportedly will until 2020), so the new Ryzen CPUs also work with 300-series motherboards after a BIOS update. First-gen Ryzens do work with 400-series platforms as well, allowing you to drop an older CPU into a brand-new board, if desired.</span></span></span></span><span><br/></span></p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ></td><td  ><strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700X</strong></td><td  >AMD Ryzen 7 1800X</td><td  ><strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700</strong></td><td  >AMD Ryzen 5 1600X</td><td  >AMD Ryzen 5 2600X</td><td  >AMD Ryzen 5 2600</td><td  >Intel Core i7-8700K</td><td  >Intel Core i7-8700</td><td  >Intel Core i5-8600K</td><td  >Intel Core i5-8400</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>MSRP</strong></td><td  >$329</td><td  >$349</td><td  >$299</td><td  >$219</td><td  >$229</td><td  >$199</td><td  >$359</td><td  >$303</td><td  >$257</td><td  >$182</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cores/Threads</strong></td><td  >8/16</td><td  >8/16</td><td  >8/16</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/12</td><td  >6/6</td><td  >6/6</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>TDP</strong></td><td  >105W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >95W</td><td  >65W</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Base Freq. (GHz)</strong></td><td  >3.7</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.2</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >3.4</td><td  >3.7</td><td  >3.2</td><td  >3.6</td><td  >2.8</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)</strong></td><td  >4.3</td><td  >4.1</td><td  >4.1</td><td  >4.0</td><td  >4.2</td><td  >3.9</td><td  >4.7</td><td  >4.6</td><td  >4.3</td><td  >4.0</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cache (L3)</strong></td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >16MB</td><td  >12MB</td><td  >12MB</td><td  >9MB</td><td  >9MB</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Unlocked Multiplier</strong></td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >No</td><td  >Yes</td><td  >No</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cooler</strong></td><td  >105W Wraith Prism (LED)</td><td  >-</td><td  >95W Wraith Spire (LED)</td><td  >-</td><td  >95W Wraith Spire</td><td  >65W Wraith Stealth</td><td  >-</td><td  >Intel</td><td  >-</td><td  >Intel</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>The $329 Ryzen 7 2700X should sell for $20 less than an 1800X (though prices of previous-generation chips will likely fall as long as stock is robust), while the $299 Ryzen 7 2700 lands right where you formerly found the 1700. AMD's non-X models were apparently more popular with enthusiasts since they also had unlocked multipliers, enabling similar performance as the pricier models (after some tuning) for less money. You could save $50 stepping down from Ryzen 7 1800X to the 1700, for example. But that gap shrinks to $30 this time around.</p><p>AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X grapples with Intel's $359 flagship <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-cpu,5252.html">Core i7-8700K</a>. Though that seems like an uncomfortably close comparison, AMD allows you to overclock with one of its value-oriented B-series motherboards (B350-based, for now), whereas Intel compels users splurge on a Z-series platform for overclocking. Adding the CPU and motherboard together, Intel's premium ends up being quite a bit higher. </p><p>Second-gen Ryzens now support up to DDR4-2933 RAM as well, trumping the Coffee Lake architecture's official DDR4-2666 ceiling (with a few caveats that we'll cover shortly). More bandwidth should help latency-sensitive apps, such as games. Also, X470 motherboards pave the way for better memory overclocking than previous-gen platforms.</p><p><span>AMD's first-gen X-series processors, which topped out at 95W, came without a bundled thermal solution. This time around, all 2000-series CPUs include a cooler. The 105W Ryzen 7 2700X includes a "Wraith Prism" LED cooler that features four direct-contact copper heat pipes, three independent RGB zones, switchable fan profiles, and a 39 dB(A) noise rating. The cooler is rated to dissipate 116W of waste heat in "L" mode (2800 RPM) and 124W in "H" mode (3600 RPM). Cooler Master manufactures the heat sink/fan, while AMD provides software for controlling the lighting and fan profiles. Company representatives claim the cooler represents a  roughly $43 value, and that it also allows for some overclocking headroom. <br/></span></p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:764px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:77.75%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eGJn67fyRdcLfvohX8PDiU.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eGJn67fyRdcLfvohX8PDiU.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="764" height="594" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eGJn67fyRdcLfvohX8PDiU.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p><span>As with the generation before, AMD employs Indium solder between its die and heat spreader to improve thermal transfer. In contrast, Intel uses standard thermal interface material on its Core i7-8700K. Also, that Intel chip doesn't come with a cooler, widening the price gap between a Ryzen 7 2700X-based configuration and a current-generation unlocked Intel Core i7.<br/></span></p><p><span>According to AMD, its 2000-series CPUs benefit from an </span>improved <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-2.html">SensMI suite</a> that also includes its new StorMI Technology. The latter is a software-based tiering solution that melds the low price and high capacity of a hard drive with the speed of an SSD, 3D XPoint (including <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-optane-ssd-800p,5497.html">Intel's Optane parts</a>), or even up to 2GB of RAM. AMD sold this software as a $20 add-on in the past, but now it comes free as part of the 2000-series package. As with any tiering utility, you assume the same risks of data loss inherent to a RAID 0 array. For more details about this software, read our feature: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-fuzedrive-fuzeram-enmotus-ryzen,36368.html">AMD and Enmotus Expand FuzeDrive Offerings</a>. </p><h2 id="the-globalfoundries-12nm-lp-process">The GlobalFoundries 12nm LP Process</h2><p>As mentioned, AMD's 2000-series CPUs are not manufactured on GlobalFoundries' 14nm GPP node, but rather its 12nm LP process technology. The ported-over design helps boost transistor performance, but does not affect die area or transistor density. As a result, Pinnacle Ridge's ~4.8 billion transistors and 213mm<sup>2</sup> area remain the same as first-gen Ryzen.</p><p>Lower leakage current does enable roughly 300 MHz-higher clock rates or a 50mV core voltage reduction at any given frequency compared to 14nm manufacturing. The company also refined some of the architecture's critical pathways with higher-performance transistors. All told, AMD claims the 12nm design enables up to 11% less power consumption than 14nm-based Ryzen CPUs at the same clock rates, or up to 16% more performance at the same thermal design power. All-core overclocks are expected to land in the 4.2 GHz range moving forward.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1510px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:43.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Z3Yatgom3U8R3d9GY9DJph.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Z3Yatgom3U8R3d9GY9DJph.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1510" height="663" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Z3Yatgom3U8R3d9GY9DJph.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>AMD also adds other nuanced refinements to the performance story, reportedly improving L1, L2, and L3 cache latencies, while also reducing memory latency by 11%.</p><p>Ryzen 7 2700X's 105W TDP represents a 10.5% increase compared to the 1800X for a 4.65% increase in boost frequencies. That seems like a simple trade-off of power consumption for higher clock rates. But the TDP rating also takes the multi-core Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 algorithms' higher power draw into account, allowing access to Socket AM4's full 95-amp current ceiling even during stock operation. </p><h2 id="precision-boost-2-and-xfr2-3">Precision Boost 2 And XFR2</h2><p>AMD's previous-gen Ryzen processors have Precision Boost (a <span>Dynamic Voltage Frequency Scaling implementation similar to Intel's Turbo Boost), and </span>eXtended Frequency Range, which provides additional frequency uplift if your cooling solution has thermal headroom to spare. Those 1000-series CPUs only offer dual-core or all-core Precision Boost and XFR clock rates. But lightly-threaded applications (like games) often offload less-critical tasks to other threads. Unfortunately, light helper threads can apply enough of a load to trigger the lower all-core frequency, limiting performance potential even when the CPU <em>could</em> be operating at higher clock rates.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:961px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:61.29%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NYSEggBR5g7BcaEzuSpik9.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NYSEggBR5g7BcaEzuSpik9.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="961" height="589" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NYSEggBR5g7BcaEzuSpik9.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p><br>The new Precision Boost 2 (which <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-2400g-zen-vega-cpu-gpu,5467-3.html">debuted on the desktop with AMD&apos;s Raven Ridge processors)</a> and XFR2 algorithms improve performance in threaded workloads by raising the frequency of any number of cores. Precision Boost 2 delivers up to 500 MHz-higher clocks during multi-core workloads, while XFR2 adds an additional 7% boost if your cooler is beefy enough. This extends Ryzen&apos;s already-strong threaded performance to a wider variety of tasks, though it levels off when the processor reaches 60°C (tCase) or 95 amps of current. Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 also work on 300-series motherboards.</p><p>AMD doesn&apos;t share a list of specific multi-core Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 bins, because its opportunistic algorithms achieve different frequencies based on temperature, current, and load.</p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>Intel & AMD Processor Comparison Hierarchy</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="39c95e9c-6fed-4d30-bbd1-57fb14b8fe48">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Processor-Wraith-Cooler/dp/B07B428M7F/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Ryzen 7 2700X" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:83.03%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/c2cT8QyxBHDJ3zenoyjwN3.jpg" alt=""><span class='featured__label hero__label'> </span></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 7 2700X</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="f7e48c3d-ecaa-4f70-be88-193c3ee1d79a">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Processor-Wraith-Cooler/dp/B07B428V2L/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Ryzen 5 2600X" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:82.55%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NGCRsMpYvNzAhf8vPeWere.jpg" alt=""><span class='featured__label hero__label'> </span></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 5 2600X</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div><h2 id="x470-and-ryzen-master-1-3">X470 And Ryzen Master 1.3</h2><p>AMD's Socket AM4 was designed with robust power delivery capabilities that aren't entirely used by first-gen Ryzen processors. The 2000-series chips are much better at leveraging the platform's current headroom through their improved boost algorithms. Some value-oriented motherboards employ scaled-back power delivery capabilities, so AMD's second-gen Ryzen CPUs communicate with the platform to modulate performance based on what the motherboard can do. That's a necessary addition to accommodate Ryzen 7 2700X's 105W TDP, which didn't exist before this new chip line. As a result, less-capable motherboards may not expose the full performance potential of higher-TDP processors like the Ryzen 7 2700X.</p><p>The processor monitors <span> Package Power Tracking (PPT) and </span><span><span>Thermal Design Current (TDC)</span> variables, measuring available margin to the motherboard's maximum power output and current, respectively. Electrical Design Current (EDC) also indicates the maximum current possible from the VRMs during peak/transient conditions. A control loop feeds the real-time telemetry data back to the Infinity Fabric, which then allows the processor to dynamically affect performance based on thermal and power conditions.</span></p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1440px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:54.65%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KDfG9SJTVMdBLhWgXyWenP.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KDfG9SJTVMdBLhWgXyWenP.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1440" height="787" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KDfG9SJTVMdBLhWgXyWenP.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>If the motherboard BIOS supports it, AMD exposes some of these monitoring features with its updated Ryzen Master 1.3 overclocking software. The fastest cores are identified during the binning process and flagged by Ryzen Master with gold stars on a per-<a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ccx-definition-cpu-core-explained,6338.html">CCX</a> basis. The third- and fourth-fastest cores are marked with a circle.</p><p>AMD's software now supports per-CCX overclocking as well, and includes a built-in stress test. The warranty does not cover damage caused by overclocking, so exercise caution.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1261px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:32.36%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/G8hvzJZ9Xc7DPHLfLd2hGg.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/G8hvzJZ9Xc7DPHLfLd2hGg.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1261" height="408" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/G8hvzJZ9Xc7DPHLfLd2hGg.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p><span> Because there are still plenty of 300-series motherboards available for sale, AMD designed a badge to let you know that a firmware update may be necessary before dropping a 2000-series CPU into one of those older platforms. Unless your 300-series motherboard has an out-of-band update mechanism like BIOS Flashback, y</span><span><span>ou need a previous-gen Ryzen processor to update it. </span></span><span>AMD also offers its <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-raven-ridge-boot-kit,36552.html">Boot Kit solution</a>, which is a loaner processor you can use to update the motherboard firmware. <br/></span></p><p><span>Eventually, all 300-series motherboards will support 2000-series processors right out of the box. AMD expects X470 and X370 boards to coexist for the foreseeable future, so it may be possible to find excellent deals on those previous-gen motherboards. <br/></span></p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>DIMM Slots Filled</strong></td><td  ><strong>Memory Ranks</strong></td><td  ><strong>Supported Speed</strong></td></tr><tr><td  >2 of 2</td><td  >Single</td><td  >2933*</td></tr><tr><td  >2 of 2</td><td  >Dual</td><td  >2677</td></tr><tr><td  >2 of 4</td><td  >Single</td><td  >2933*</td></tr><tr><td  >2 of 4</td><td  >Dual</td><td  >2400</td></tr><tr><td  >4 of 4</td><td  >Single</td><td  >2133</td></tr><tr><td  >4 of 4</td><td  >Dual</td><td  >1866</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>*Note: requires a motherboard with at least six PCB layers. DDR4-2667 is supported on four-layer PCBs.</p><p>AMD's 2000-series processors support up to DDR4-2933 with a pair of single-rank DIMMs, though you need a six-layer motherboard to unlock that capability. Support drops back to DDR4-2667 for four-layer motherboards. Fortunately for enthusiasts, most mainstream platforms utilize six or eight layers. <span><br/></span></p><p><span>From what we've seen thus far, X470 motherboards have an improved layout to</span><span> facilitate aggressive memory overclocking. As you might expect, X470 boards in our labs are much more mature at launch than the 300-series platforms we battled last year. Thanks to this, we're easily running memory at DDR4-3466 with tight timings. Our motherboard team also noticed vastly improved overclocking with all memory slots populated, which was an issue on some X370 motherboards. <br/></span></p><p><span>X470-based motherboards feature lower power consumption, higher multi-hub USB throughput, and improved power delivery. But they still have the same connectivity options as 300-series motherboards. </span></p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>I/O Source</strong></td><td  ><strong>USB 3.1 Gen2</strong></td><td  ><strong>USB 3.1 Gen1</strong></td><td  ><strong>USB 2.0</strong></td><td  ><strong>PCIe Gen3</strong></td><td  ><strong>GPP PCIe Gen2</strong></td><td  ><strong>SATA</strong></td></tr><tr><td  >AMD Ryzen SoC (1000- and 2000-series)</td><td  >0</td><td  >4</td><td  >0</td><td  >20x</td><td  >0</td><td  >2</td></tr><tr><td  >X470/370</td><td  >2</td><td  >6</td><td  >6</td><td  >0</td><td  >8</td><td  >8</td></tr><tr><td  >B350</td><td  >2</td><td  >2</td><td  >6</td><td  >0</td><td  >6</td><td  >6</td></tr><tr><td  >A320</td><td  >1</td><td  >2</td><td  >6</td><td  >0</td><td  >4</td><td  >6</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>The first line in our chart covers Ryzen's I/O capabilities, which you then combine with one of the chipsets underneath to determine platform connectivity. A Ryzen CPU sports 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes. Sixteen are dedicated to the PCIe slots, while four lanes are dedicated to SATA ports or a 4x link for NVMe SSDs. Four of the SATA ports can also be assigned to SATA Express interfaces at a 2:1 ratio, yielding a maximum of two SATA Express connections.</p><p>As you can see, the X470 chipset offers the same connectivity options as its predecessor, with two USB 3.1 Gen2 ports, four USB 3.1 Gen1 ports, six USB 2.0 ports, and eight general-purpose PCIe 2.0 lanes that vendors can carve up for additional functionality (like hanging M.2 slots off of the chipset or enhanced 5/10GbE support).</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="cache-and-memory-performance-ipc">Cache And Memory Performance, IPC</h2><h2 id="memory-latency">Memory Latency</h2><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>AMD Measurements </strong></td><td  >L1 Cache Latency</td><td  >L2 Cache Latency</td><td  >L3 Cache Latency</td><td  >Memory Latency</td></tr><tr><td  >Latency Improvements</td><td  >13%</td><td  >34%</td><td  >16%</td><td  >11%</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>AMD's first-gen processors demonstrated higher memory latency than we expected, affecting the performance of memory-sensitive applications. The company claims it reduced memory latency by 11% this time around, as well as cutting cache latencies by double-digit percentages. We'll start by measuring the memory and Infinity Fabric subsystems, and then move on to IPC tests.</p><p>SiSoftware's Sandra is used to measure cache and memory latency with three different access patterns, giving us more granularity than a single test. Sequential access patterns are almost entirely prefetched into the TLB, so that one's a good measure of prefetcher performance. The in-page random test measures random accesses within the same memory page. It also measures TLB performance and represents best-case random performance. The full random test features a mix of TLB hits and misses, with a strong likelihood of misses, so it quantifies worst-case latency.</p><p>We tested both the Ryzen 7 1800X and Ryzen 7 2700X on the same X470 motherboard. We include results with the Ryzen 7 2700X at DDR4-2933 for the stock configuration, DDR4-3466 for the overclocked configuration, and DDR4-2666 to normalize it with AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xM5WeyyjftkgmQJPHPhJYi.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/EgupZhSHKVrxPpUZNmhPjT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gBbXhiDQJeGi3Mq5yKqv6M.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>With normalized DDR4-2667 data rates and timings, the Ryzen 7 2700X posts impressive gains over Ryzen 7 1800X, regardless of the data access pattern. As percentages, the 2700X's improvements weigh in at 11.49% for full random, 6.64% for in-page, and 9.35% for the sequential access pattern.</p><p>The Infinity Fabric speeds up as we increase memory frequency to the 2700X's default DDR4-2933. This fabric ties the IMC and cores together, so we record even larger improvements of 18% in the full random test, 13.4% with a full random access pattern, and 12.9% with the sequential metric.</p><p>AMD isn't fully disclosing the steps it took to improve memory latency, but we suspect the company worked on the Infinity Fabric and integrated memory controller to realize these gains.</p><h2 id="cache-latency-and-bandwidth">Cache Latency And Bandwidth</h2><p>Regardless of the memory access pattern, the smallest data chunks fit into L1 cache. As the data gets larger, it populates the 2700X's higher tiers of cache, which we outlined in the following table:</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ></td><td  ><strong>L1</strong></td><td  ><strong>L2</strong></td><td  ><strong>L3</strong></td><td  ><strong>Main Memory</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Range</strong></td><td  >2KB - 32KB</td><td  >64KB - 512KB</td><td  >1MB - 4MB</td><td  >8MB - 1GB</td></tr></tbody></table></div><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7YGBjmApj5uPfwbtsj5Ub8.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gtFwWCcFnfB4QgGE7QZ8ZP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Ryeu9ZUM2sDaxmF7AeAAsh.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uhut46CiQvM7WiLiyWKHdm.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/c3AFSwWVjyRtCf6pMdxnqQ.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>% Improvement Over 1800X</strong></td><td  >L1</td><td  >L2</td><td  >L3</td></tr><tr><td  >In-Page</td><td  >11.11%</td><td  >51.72%</td><td  >26.38%</td></tr><tr><td  >Full-Random</td><td  >11.11%</td><td  >53.5%</td><td  >25.64%</td></tr><tr><td  >Sequential</td><td  >11.11%</td><td  >13.3%</td><td  >13.3%</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>The cache latency reductions that we measured are even better than what AMD suggested we'd see, though its lab might be using different access patterns. Regardless, the apples-to-apples results in our table are downright impressive.</p><p>We also see a notable increase in cache bandwidth. Feeding the cores with lower latency and higher throughput is a win-win on the performance front. Intel's S-series processors still have a big single-core L1 bandwidth advantage, but AMD's updated L2 cache is measurably faster than the 1800X in both single- and multi-threaded tests. AMD even enjoys better L2 cache latency than Intel in the sequential test and better L3 cache latency with several data patterns.</p><h2 id="to-infinity-and-beyond">To Infinity, And Beyond</h2><p>The updated Zen+ design fuses two four-core CCXs together with <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-review,5014-2.html">the Infinity Fabric, </a>which is a crossbar that also handles IMC, northbridge, and PCIe traffic. As such, fabric latency is a critical variable that ensures the memory latency gains we observe can actually be delivered to the cores.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/82p4KRANX89DddwzMNJAAF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UouPKncxtzqaFTcNxbqhX8.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>SiSoftware Sandra's Processor Multi-Core Efficiency metric helps illustrate the Infinity Fabric's performance. We use the Multi-Threaded test with the "best pair match" setting (lowest latency). The utility measures ping times between threads to quantify fabric latency in every possible configuration. We boil those benchmarks down to latency averages for the different pathways, but <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-game-performance,5207-2.html">head here for a more detailed explanation</a> of the various components.</p><p>AMD reduced Ryzen 7 2700X's intra-core latency by 11.8% and the critical cross-CCX latency by 8.3%. We also notice that Ryzen 7 2700X offers significantly improved fabric bandwidth.</p><h2 id="instructions-per-clock">Instructions Per Clock</h2><p>It's important to remember that IPC can vary by workload, so dissimilar tasks may yield different outcomes. We set a static 3 GHz clock rate for the following tests:</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jHNaZSxCzbMHK4ZJEJ3ug7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ANQwzjmCMmkyomStsaWq5i.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mrhEnShifeUP89B3UAtsoc.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QBLmn2f5JZPAWsCD4YKXSe.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZACrw5LDQrNVNagJaqfMjW.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3Ga5sdcFjbf92HksLXzPNe.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xovEKgPjEeT869GKUWE4ii.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/poUjSomiLRJfuJ7gavi7bm.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Our single-core Cinebench benchmark suggests a 1.6% IPC improvement favoring Ryzen 7 2700X. But while AMD does improve, Intel still holds onto a distinct IPC throughput advantage. Switching to the Multi-Threaded Cinbench test gives Ryzen 7 2700X a 2.7% improvement over its predecessor.</p><p>Core i9-7820X employs two 256-bit AVX FMA units per core that operate in parallel, whereas Ryzen's Zen architecture divides 256-bit AVX operations across two FMA units per core. That difference hands the Skylake-X processor a commanding lead in y-cruncher. We do see a 3.9% increase in the 2700X's Multi-Threaded y-cruncher result compared to Ryzen 7 1800X. But the gains in single-threaded AVX performance are marginal.</p><p>We see similar results in our single-core cryptographic tests, though Ryzen 7 2700X takes an 8.7% lead over the 1800X in the Multi-Threaded AES-256-ECB encryption workload. AMD's Zen architecture includes two AES cryptographic accelerators for each core, so it isn't surprising to see Ryzen dominate over Intel's S-series CPUs in the AES-256-ECB tests.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="overclocking-spectre-and-test-setup">Overclocking, Spectre, And Test Setup</h2><h2 id="overclocking-4">Overclocking</h2><p>We ran our gaming and application tests in the U.S. lab, while power/thermal measurements were collected in our German lab.</p><p>In the U.S. lab, we paired our Ryzen 7 2700X with Corsair's H115i cooler for overclocking. This allowed us to maintain a 4.2 GHz all-core frequency at 1.3785V Vcore, 1.2V SoC voltage, and the default Load Line Calibration settings. Since we couldn't smash through to 4.3 GHz without exceeding AMD's 1.40V maximum recommended Vcore setting, we stopped at 4.2 GHz.</p><p>We did encounter temperatures as high as 90°C during extended AVX testing, so we recommend a capable closed-loop or custom water cooler for overclocking. AMD would really benefit from an AVX-offset feature as well, which could cut clock rates during power-hungry AVX workloads. Should you choose to go the more extreme route, there have been reports of 5.8 GHz with Ryzen 7 2700X under LN2.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1510px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:57.35%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tSJuyouTU9BXb2cHYXVrH6.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tSJuyouTU9BXb2cHYXVrH6.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1510" height="866" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tSJuyouTU9BXb2cHYXVrH6.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>First-gen Ryzen processors don't have much memory overclocking headroom, so we're still testing tuned X370 platforms at DDR4-3200. However, the X470 platform was remarkably stable at higher data rates with Ryzen 7 2700X. So, we settled on DDR4-3466 with 14-14-14-34 timings (though we're confident that more time to tune would yield even higher overclocks). We also ran our overclocked Intel processors at DDR4-3466.</p><h2 id="spectre-and-meltdown">Spectre And Meltdown</h2><p>Our test rigs now include Meltdown And Spectre Variant 1 mitigations. Spectre Variant 2 requires both motherboard firmware/microcode and operating system patches. We have installed the operating system patches for Variant 2.</p><p>Today's performance measurements do not include Intel's motherboard firmware mitigations for Spectre Variant 2 though, as we've been waiting for AMD patches to level the playing field. Last week, <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-spectre-meltdown-patch-microcode,36860.html">AMD announced that it’s making the mitigations available</a> to motherboard vendors and OEMs, which the company says should take time to appear in the wild. We checked MSI's website for firmware updates applicable to our X370 platforms when AMD made its announcement, but no new BIOSes were available (and still aren't).</p><p>Unfortunately, we were only made aware that Variant 2 mitigations are present in our X470 board's firmware just before launch, precluding us from re-testing the Intel platforms with patches applied. We're working on this now, and plan to post updated results in future reviews.</p><p>The lack of Spectre Variant 2 patches in our Intel results likely give the Core CPUs a slight advantage over AMD's patched platforms. But the performance difference should be minimal with modern processors.</p><h2 id="test-setup">Test Setup</h2><p>AMD is working on a Precision Boost Overdrive feature, which seems similar to the Multi-Core Enhanced Turbo (MCE) feature that allows Intel's K-series processors to run at their maximum Turbo Boost bin across all cores at all times. The setting on Intel platforms modifies the CPU's clock rate and voltage to deliver higher performance, basically amounting to factory-sanctioned overclocking.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1510px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:76.82%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4i9P6bW9RwPVbaeK4gcjZ4.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4i9P6bW9RwPVbaeK4gcjZ4.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1510" height="1160" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4i9P6bW9RwPVbaeK4gcjZ4.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>AMD's Ryzen Master 1.3 software doesn't currently let you activate this feature from within Windows. But as we often find with MCE, AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive is enabled by default in many BIOSes. After extensive experimentation, we can conclude that the option doesn't deliver an appreciable performance gain in its current form. Thus, we ran our tests with Precision Boost Overdrive disabled.</p><h2 id="comparison-products-6">Comparison Products </h2>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="93396447-445f-445e-b76b-d2c9e863f678">            <a href="http://www.tkqlhce.com/click-8900246-12920453?sid=tomshardware-&url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117824" data-model-name="Core i5-8400" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:108.91%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Mbp7fKeJrnqTAagSTBP399.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i5-8400</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="d0df2fff-a9a6-4e21-bc7b-9660bcadb475">            <a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117825" data-model-name="Core i5-8600K" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:120.30%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ovaurhrrbXkvAC9XyKvdJU.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i5-8600K</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="f8c39dc7-0eab-4bf5-81ad-718055bc798e">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Desktop-Processor-i7-7700K-BX80677I77700K/dp/B01MXSI216/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Core i7-7700K" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:128.84%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uXuLfgK33H8rdH2AUffqUk.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i7-7700K</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div><h2 id="test-systems-5">Test Systems</h2><div ><table><thead><tr><th  colspan="2"><strong>Test System & Configuration</strong></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Hardware</strong></td><td  ><strong><strong><strong>Germany </strong></strong>AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)</strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466<strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):</strong>Intel Core i5-8600K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2666<strong>AMD Socket </strong><strong>AM4 Workstation (300-Series)</strong>AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600X, Ryzen 5 1400MSI X370 Tomahawk4x 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 <strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)</strong>Intel Core i7-7700KMSI Z270 Gaming 72x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2400 and 3200<strong>All Systems</strong>GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming)Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System)2x 960GB Toshiba OCZ TR150 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Power SupplyWindows 10 Pro (Creators Update)<strong><strong>U.S.AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)</strong></strong>AMD Ryzen 7 2700XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466<strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):</strong>Intel Core i7-8700K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466<strong>AMD Socket AM4 (300-Series)</strong>AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700X, 1700, Ryzen 5 1600XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3200<strong><span>Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)</span></strong>Intel Core i7-7700K MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400<strong>Intel LGA 2066</strong>Intel Core i7-7820XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666<strong>All</strong> EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cooling</strong></td><td  ><strong>Germany</strong>Alphacool Eiszeit 2000 ChillerAlphacool Eisblock XPXThermal Grizzly Kryonaut (For Cooler Switch)<strong>U.S.</strong>Corsair H115i</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Monitor</strong></td><td  >Eizo EV3237-BK</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>PC Case</strong></td><td  >Lian Li PC-T70 with Extension Kit and Mods Configurations: Open Benchtable, Closed Case</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Power Consumption Measurement</strong></td><td  >Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100 kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500 MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Thermal Measurement</strong></td><td  >1x Optris PI640 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Acoustic Measurement</strong></td><td  >NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="vrmark-3dmark-and-aots-escalation">VRMark, 3DMark And AotS: Escalation</h2><h2 id="vrmark-amp-3dmark-5">VRMark & 3DMark </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/JsCZFJk8aYhd6MeRgh2vZb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/dpH8zr2uewe2eT99efGZyA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GhY7upv5Mw7oio28og79Ji.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Gaming is where rubber meets the road for most enthusiasts. AMD tells us that its 2000-series processors should be nearly equivalent to Intel's comparable models, at least at stock settings. And there's no doubt that Ryzen 7 2700X will excel in heavily-threaded titles. But tests that are sensitive to clock rate and IPC throughput, such as VRMark, have traditionally been a challenge for Ryzen.</p><p>The 2700X bridges the gap between Intel's processors and first-gen Ryzen. AMD's stock 2700X outstrips the Ryzen 7 1800X by 11.8%. More impressively, it also beats the overclocked 1800X by 2%. The 2700X's lead over its predecessor extends further after tuning its cores and memory subsystem.</p><p>Synthetic benchmarks are great because they tend to scale more clearly than real-world applications. 3DMark's real usefulness lies in measuring the amount of performance available to game engines, giving us a peek at what highly-optimized games <em>could be</em> capable of.</p><p>Ryzen 7 2700X's 16 threads beat Core i7-8700K's 12 threads in our DX11 and DX12 CPU tests, even after overclocking. The 2700X also bests Intel's $589 Core i7-7820X during both tests.</p><h2 id="ashes-of-the-singularity-escalation-6">Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SbMPgdaXLnC5GStdsJpfzf.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/B7ZLs2HBtEA3xgJQAA2jpQ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FzfQW8ggx7Bjw9PKPaZp3b.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YWA6Fna7J2dFjxHTcvkBR9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/n3jMvgxD2ZxgTJgK4dv8zC.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation </em><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-6.html">evokes memories of AMD's early struggles</a> with the Zen architecture. This was one of the first games to receive an update optimized for AMD's processor design.</p><p>Although the patch improved performance, Ryzen 7 1800X still fails to beat a stock Core i7-8700K. But Ryzen 7 2700X and its Precision Boost 2 algorithm turn the tables, giving AMD an advantage in stock and overclocked trim.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-amp-ai-dawn-of-war-iii-6">Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III</h2><h2 id="civilization-vi-ai-test-6">Civilization VI AI Test</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:75.00%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/bKKpwwbwu3PFB3qbzk5WTT.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/bKKpwwbwu3PFB3qbzk5WTT.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="834" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/bKKpwwbwu3PFB3qbzk5WTT.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p><em>Civilization's </em><span>AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance. Ryzen 7 2700X almost ties the Coffee Lake-based Core i7-8700K at its stock settings. However, Intel gains more from overclocking, pulling away after our tuning efforts. <br/></span></p><p><span>Again, notice that the stock Ryzen 7 2700X is fast enough to beat the overclocked 1800X. <br/></span></p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-test-6">Civilization VI Graphics Test </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/t2UnUVceMcwJaDfKFcn9ZR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Xm6h4ZnZ5A6RqiL5xVNq8a.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DuJnrjJFZNDUKjiaoD4xf4.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7biz84mSyjuQeb2E6FW968.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DNxG2gsQew4SzTh6n8TgMb.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The stock Ryzen 7 2700X beats every other Ryzen CPU by ~10 FPS (or more). But Intel's stock CPUs have no problem maintaining their advantage.</p><p>Tuning the 2700X yields a 6.3% speed-up on average. But that doesn't help it catch the Core i5-8600K, which takes the top two spots in our chart.</p><h2 id="warhammer-40-000-dawn-of-war-iii-6">Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/h2vBs2X4cjG9iRPN5PiZLG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/EccsRnKKRzuoMNJy4UdGUN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Et5JzBHDpnvZ6xiUQqZQMS.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RftKQqm2yFUW6fhTapYxNQ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/pRpzykJR5C8VMrLC3x9KKZ.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X lands just shy of the Core i7-7700K and -8700K. Tuning those chips allows them to walk away from AMD's flagship, though.</p><p>Meanwhile, Ryzen 7 2700X beats AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X by 14% right out of the box.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="far-cry-primal-gta-v-hitman">Far Cry Primal, GTA: V, Hitman</h2><h2 id="far-cry-primal-5">Far Cry Primal </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5NzSdHWYS35uwSRErvjLRh.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/dUwx8ziHEmKo6HgPVzpjyn.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FAGpzdtKfHuEKpqjfruaUA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VGuMHJ9jM7LfwEKFAmbLji.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VrVXGUbafzKmcewkbZnrtL.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Far Cry Primal</em> responds well to Intel's Core i7-7700K. It's also interesting that a stock Core i5-8600K beats the overclocked 6C/12T Core i7-8700K. Then again, <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-core-i5-8600k-cpu,5264-6.html">we've seen this tendency before</a>.</p><p>The stock Ryzen 7 2700X lags behind Intel's newest K-series CPUs, though tuning does help AMD's case.</p><h2 id="grand-theft-auto-v-6">Grand Theft Auto V</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uTXs2Gx43WJPGzMMaz2dqk.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/rFDtRCxSwHUH2hdh7KsJNe.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mCLz2VV8sqneu6UCNZgJkf.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5GZv46SUGVEyGwzB25fbtN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3vRgj6HSf34qHnABR5rNXi.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Grand Theft Auto V</em><span> favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates. The overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X vies with Intel's chips at stock frequencies. But again, giving Coffee Lake the same treatment propels those chips to the top of our chart. <br/></span></p><p><span>Ryzen 7 1700 suffers from a low base clock rate and languishes at the bottom of our chart as a result. This processor often provides similar performance as AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X after some tuning. However, it's clear that the Ryzen 7 2700X sets a new high water mark for AMD CPUs in games. <br/></span></p><h2 id="hitman-6">Hitman </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/fuQRsc29rEthfMhwdqwdXZ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/29WTuGbHrqPPYmGm5NEZh7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ypHPDkJFALHUWrHaK2TVgn.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CEWAy7KBKY3er7L5iCV8eF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uZXYBRajDZYWUQKAqL8Zik.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Hitman</em>'s GOTY update imposed a hard 90 FPS cap on performance, so this title no longer scales well with high-end PCs. Unfortunately, some popular AAA games employ similar frame rate limits, so we leave this result in place to show that not all titles respond to faster components.</p><p>We do see slight scaling from Ryzen 7 1700 up to Intel's overclocked models. However, these differences would be hard to spot during a gaming session. Ryzen 7 2700X lands in a familiar position ahead of AMD's previous-gen Ryzen CPUs. </p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="shadow-of-war-project-cars-2">Shadow Of War, Project CARS 2</h2><h2 id="middle-earth-shadow-of-war-6">Middle-earth: Shadow Of War</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xrVSA9d2xPecnQeSyzSsge.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cKXsiuaFuPdGpVJHyCbS3L.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GbHbUAu9UtDsWiYdWtff9Q.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/abyBqVm5ftuBsCMn6A2chC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Nssck5kwE8QRBQYKWnSPQb.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Middle-earth: Shadow of War</em><span> doesn't scale as dramatically as some of our other benchmarks, and it certainly isn't as sensitive to IPC throughput and frequency as </span><em>Shadow of Mordor</em><span>. While CPU reviews tend to focus on games that scale well with certain host processing specifications, some games just can't get enough graphics performance. </span></p><p>Ryzen 7 2700X comes tantalizingly close to matching the Coffee Lake-based processors at stock and overclocked settings.</p><h2 id="project-cars-2-6">Project CARS 2</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/9KrcKFsoAjCshrUysfANEP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CDRJfXt7qETqMmJ5o2phUC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/9PKQxnG4qMvU2GfzFKtTQn.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ufUBFsiJXA9MS6kpzgSBFM.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ouRxWoLUmSdNXmiXt9XDxm.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Project CARS 2</em><span> is purportedly optimized for threading. A 6C/6T Core i5-8600K beats the overclocked 8C/16T Ryzen 7 2700X though, so it's clear that parallelism isn't the most influential factor in defining this game's performance. <br/></span></p><p><span>A stock Ryzen 7 2700X trails all of the Intel CPUs except for Core i7-7820X. But overclocking nudges AMD's flagship closer to the top. <br/></span></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="office-and-productivity">Office And Productivity</h2><h2 id="adobe-creative-cloud-6">Adobe Creative Cloud</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tfjCvNLBtKiWHucnE3bAVX.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TwetPQjDCLsSJ9iymruFRY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WULRUem2wbqnm6fvrANap7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ryy25g6nDsxsqNAgt7DWX5.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wTPhCdvG9b2uU4cL5gUsvL.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/j2d3nmNUbnuoHp6QZeJKbi.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Adobe's Creative Cloud suite generally favors higher frequencies and IPC throughput, giving Intel an advantage. Still, Ryzen 7 2700X provides a nice balance of high clock rates and core count, yielding an impressive 13.8% speed-up in the overall score compared to AMD's tuned Ryzen 7 1800X.</p><p>Overclocking doesn't deliver the big gains we recorded in our gaming suite. In some of the lightly-threaded application tests (like After Effects), a stock Ryzen 7 2700X is even faster than the overclocked one. This is a result of the 2700X's 4.3 GHz Precision Boost 2 frequency, which outstrips our 4.2 GHz all-core overclock. These tests also aren't as latency-sensitive as gaming workloads, so DDR4-3466 doesn't deliver as much of a performance improvement.</p><h2 id="web-browser-6">Web Browser</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SMfPiajv8TE5RXcGAjAH9o.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SW6oTberoPVWkp6GUfLU9Y.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7xRx4z7C9QuoQLR7gg4WFX.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. AMD's processors typically lag Intel's in Web browser benchmarks due to their lower per-core performance. However, a stock Ryzen 7 2700X still outpaces its overclocked predecessor.</p><p>The MotionMark benchmarks, which emphasize graphics performance (rather than JavaScript), are also sensitive to CPU clock rates. Again, the 2700X's higher stock Precision Boost 2 frequencies allow it to slip past the overclocked configuration. At the same time, we measure a 14.6% gain over the stock 1800X.</p><h2 id="productivity-6">Productivity</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PzPkAQY2cjsD9NtaaEwXCB.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5wHRhLPmis5sJWZZzSNqqM.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/afSSFomzcXGkWTagCrVsHZ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4tFm6tjNUSLUardMhzg4ZE.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gvpoqyjFpFvEdts8gSh2C6.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem.</p><p>Ryzen 7 2700X is much more competitive than AMD's previous-generation CPUs. We also observe slim gains from overclocking in many of these workloads. </p><p>Our video conferencing workload measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. Not surprisingly then, a stock Ryzen 7 2700X leads the rest of the field at default clock rates thanks to its 8C/16T configuration and higher frequencies. </p><p>The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, which obviously plays to the 2700X's eight-core design.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="rendering-encoding-and-compression">Rendering, Encoding, And Compression</h2><h2 id="rendering-6">Rendering </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XkJiW43Y7WpoQC7FkJRAae.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FcMK96TEnbxAATzXenqq8L.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/p8ZMubzYdkyTQmCbNggD5J.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6adbv9c287mLsn7gQx9MSL.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YD8yDUfQVJAMCgjwzP4jRH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/EuNKCTjLM8yK9bWYBBxuNE.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/26Ri7Mt5yWkpyUmK3hywXg.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wi7MJzXQx8CNLFWXDG8fyJ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Bpkbe36DCCuSasNXHh64ia.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Ryzen 7 2700X takes a commanding lead in the multi-core Cinebench benchmark, which we expected in light of the radical cache latency and bandwidth improvements that AMD made. POV-Ray also shows the 2700X to be a chart-topper, though again it's faster in stock form than overclocked.</p><p>AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X leads in many of the threaded workloads, but isn't as impressive in workloads that tax a single core. There, Intel's architectures continue shining.</p><p>Core i7-7820X leads in LuxMark. But notice that we don't have <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1900x-cpu,5222-8.html">OpenCL results</a> for it. This is because the older OpenCL SDK doesn't support AVX-512. Intel updated the SDK fairly recently, and it works correctly with Skylake-X-based processors. We'll have to retest all of these CPUs to reflect the changes, but be assured that AVX-512 is a powerful addition. </p><h2 id="encoding-amp-compression-6">Encoding & Compression </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/qfSLDgNaYGdttHCbMNAZLk.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/x5CtqbxFn62pd3n5uZ4rhD.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3u5eoaY9qpty6p63xCaxa8.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NpHTiwfwqB3HnyDByssamm.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BQ6MexcRCFv8pUbq6v2hEb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Rw9V4NmcsQiNDGXFMXeSDg.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UuN2KxiFb8LKpvcbXe6HN3.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>LAME is the quintessential example of a single-threaded workload, and the 2700X posts solid gains over Ryzen 7 1800X in its stock configuration. </p><p>Our threaded compression and decompression tests adsorb data directly from system memory, thus removing storage from the equation. As per usual, the Ryzen processors dominate the decompression workload while Intel's Skylake-X leads in compression-oriented benchmarks. It's notable that Core i7-8700K needs overclocking in order to beat AMD's flagship.</p><p>There's a larger delta between Intel and AMD processors during our HandBrake x265 test compared to the x264 benchmark due to its heavier distribution of AVX instructions. Ryzen 7 2700X is particularly impressive in the x264 metric, where it upsets the capable Core i7-7820X.</p><p>We also provide results from y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes Pi using AVX instructions. We tested with version 0.7.3.9474, which includes Ryzen optimizations. The 2700X trails Intel's portfolio in the single-core benchmark. However, parallelization puts it in a more competitive position. Also, we clearly see the benefit of Core i7-7820X's dual 256-bit AVX FMA units (per core) in the AVX workloads.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="xfr2-vs-manual-overclocking">XFR2 vs. Manual Overclocking</h2><h2 id="xfr2-cooling-and-clock-rates">XFR2, Cooling, and Clock Rates</h2><p>In contrast to the first-gen Ryzen models and their strange temperature curves, the tCTL (core temperature) values now correspond with what we'd expect to see. AMD does add a 10-degree offset to the 2700X specifically, which motherboard BIOSes already take into account. We subtract this offset from our own measurements.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/e5sLeoPVNFgBMPe5iPgg9B.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4Ftx8K8rZASU2hWF7CDwi7.jpg" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Chip quality naturally influences achievable clock rates as well. These effects are seen much more clearly with second-gen Ryzen CPUs supporting XFR2, since they have to be binned precisely.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:711px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:75.11%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/L3PbZYLXHQtyxp2SfJy8Jd.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/L3PbZYLXHQtyxp2SfJy8Jd.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="711" height="534" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/L3PbZYLXHQtyxp2SfJy8Jd.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>With as much cooling performance as we could muster, Ryzen 7 2700X still reaches almost 4.2 GHz. A more conventional thermal solution would result in a lower clock rate. However, with a good air cooler, it should be possible to sustain 4 GHz on all cores.</p><h2 id="manual-overclocking">Manual Overclocking</h2><p>Ryzen 7 2700X can be manually overclocked to 4.3 GHz. But the 1.475V required for this is more aggressive than we want to get long-term. Pushing to 4.35 GHz resulted in a crash no matter how much voltage we applied.</p><p>As the following curve shows, power consumption and performance in Cinebench are almost directly proportional, so long as the system runs stably and doesn't crash. It's also worth noting that <span class="js-about-module-abstr">Cool'n'Quiet</span> is completely disabled on our test platform when we configure the ratio multiplier manually. When that happens, the configured clock rate doesn't drop from its specified maximum, even at idle.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:711px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.96%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/c9mYyg9hNU4PucR5P5NWpN.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/c9mYyg9hNU4PucR5P5NWpN.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="711" height="533" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/c9mYyg9hNU4PucR5P5NWpN.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>We measure a maximum of 135W in Cinebench and just over 150W in Prime95 with AVX, although this extreme torture test is more of an exhibition.</p><p>If you spend some money on good cooling, there's no reason to manually overclock Ryzen 7 2700X. Thanks to XFR2, AMD's flagship should remain stable above 4 GHz, even under full load. Try to go any higher and you'll pay a hefty price in heat, power, and possibly long-term reliability.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="power-consumption-2">Power Consumption</h2><p>At idle, Ryzen 7 2700X lands behind most of the Intel competition, but ahead of previous-gen Ryzen CPUs. First and second place in our chart go to a couple of AMD APUs, perhaps surprisingly.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:712px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:202.25%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/j8RgMrmb7eNCdy3eTVK9wH.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/j8RgMrmb7eNCdy3eTVK9wH.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="712" height="1440" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/j8RgMrmb7eNCdy3eTVK9wH.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Under a light CAD workload, Ryzen 7 2700X performs better and uses less power than its predecessor. This shows us that AMD didn't pay for better clocks with a sacrifice to power consumption. Its progress is already apparent at this point in the measurements.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:712px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:202.39%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2zWA9u4xTiCfBzmBQEwFSL.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2zWA9u4xTiCfBzmBQEwFSL.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="712" height="1441" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2zWA9u4xTiCfBzmBQEwFSL.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Gaming tells a similar story; the performance increase is again more pronounced than the differences in power consumption.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:712px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:202.39%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zBPmrpHwjdWU3DPjhhhnHX.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zBPmrpHwjdWU3DPjhhhnHX.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="712" height="1441" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zBPmrpHwjdWU3DPjhhhnHX.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>When it comes to our stress test, AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X is much more reserved than its predecessor. We attribute this to the chip's XFR2 functionality, along with more granular frequency/voltage settings.</p><p>Even when we hit it as hard as possible, the new CPU stays stable above 4 GHz.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:712px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:202.39%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XsKfxBaQHBoRFvcEbH2KQC.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XsKfxBaQHBoRFvcEbH2KQC.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="712" height="1441" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XsKfxBaQHBoRFvcEbH2KQC.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Performance rises and power consumption falls (if only slightly). There's truth to AMD's marketing material, so says our lab equipment. Ryzen 7 2700X really does deserve attention for these results.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="thermals-and-noise">Thermals And Noise</h2><h2 id="the-wraith-prism">The Wraith Prism</h2><p>Ryzen 7 2700X's Wraith Prism thermal solution is a large, high-finned cooler with four flattened heat pipes and a plate behind them for stabilization. The heat sink's entire contact surface is thus made of copper. Its fins are arranged in such a way that the exhaust air is focused toward the memory and I/O shield.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CthuXFi3mAL7pWiwrnmwGf.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6TJ9hvMwnodCztBpg8uvQh.jpg" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The fastening clamp is a big disadvantage of this large cooler, which takes us back to the old Athlon XP days. Even at maximum load on all cores in the stress test, the CPU only reaches a maximum temperature of 82.8°C (corrected value), so it remains below the thermal throttle threshold. The cooler handles the 105 watts easily. You can expect peaks up to 70°C and a little above, depending on the motherboard's predefined fan curve.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:711px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.96%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wUi2jyGLJqjXhJvmR7WYYB.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wUi2jyGLJqjXhJvmR7WYYB.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="711" height="533" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wUi2jyGLJqjXhJvmR7WYYB.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The cooler is loud and emits 44 dB(A) under load (50 cm distance, 45° diagonal) when the fan is spinning at 2600-2700 RPM. The fan can even be a bit noisy even when the system is idling on the Windows desktop. Unfortunately, the fan adjusts much too rapidly as the cooler reacts to short-term temperature jumps.</p><p>We see the result in the narrow-band frequency spectrum of the motor noise, which shifts back and forth between approx. 240 and 300 Hz. The fan generates almost 39 dB(A) at idle, which isn't necessary. It helps if adjust the fan curve to a fixed speed of at least 1400 RPM if the processor is under 60°C. However, you'll have to experiment because each case will require different settings.</p><p>AMD has made good progress with XFR2 and the powerful cooling finally pays off in terms of performance. The power consumption remains largely the same and you get a nice clock rate increase, but we don't like the unnecessary noise levels or the fiddly mounting mechanism.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="final-analysis-5">Final Analysis</h2><p>AMD's 2000-series processors aren't revolutionary, but they are far beyond the normal evolutionary updates we've become accustomed to over the last several years.</p><p>In the chart below, we plotted gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99<sup>th</sup> percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then converted into an FPS measurement. We're also presenting price-to-performance charts that get split up to include CPUs-only and extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add an extra $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/z2Xcvqgfv9ueoC7ajEbEJ6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Hdu5T3fyLSmKSHBevNzzwN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/oNtaZnfYHfguGNBksV26Nm.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4qQmVd6uAMvVbGTEMv4odW.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8bKUSbqH8EpriT2QCuNS3C.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uH4RoHqMngQzdsf3rjAwCk.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Gj6D5QDPCR7gZHGtwxcHRZ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/pjkQMGzUS6MMr3mVUThfe9.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>In gaming, AMD's stock Ryzen 7 2700X delivers a great performance boost that rivals its overclocked predecessor in every one of our tests. Tuning the 2700X provides additional performance, though you probably won't notice the difference. Check out our chart: as you can see, the Ryzen 7 2700X effectively ties Core i7-8700K based on the geometric mean. But it sells at a $30 discount, drops into a less expensive motherboard, and comes with a thermal solution that adds even more value.</p><p>While the overclocked Core i7-8700K is a fierce competitor, it requires you to buy a Z-series motherboard for overclocking, along with a capable cooler. Core i5-8600K offers most of the -8700K's performance, but you lose Ryzen 7 2700X's sixteen threads and bundled heat sink/fan. We think it's safe to say that AMD is delivering on its pledge to provide a near-equivalent gaming experience in most titles.</p><p>If you're searching for a more productivity-oriented processor, Ryzen 7 2700X is incredibly attractive. It offers superior performance compared to the Core i7-8700K in many of our threaded tests, and is much more competitive in lightly threaded applications than previous-gen models.</p><p>AMD's Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 algorithms are already pushing the voltage/frequency curve to its limits, so don't expect much in the way of overclocking headroom. We did tune Ryzen 7 2700X up to 4.2 GHz, but a higher dual-core Precision Boost 2 frequency of 4.3 GHz offers better performance than our all-core overclock in certain applications. Significant gains in games were likely a result of heightened sensitivity to our DDR4-3466 memory.</p><p>AMD's latest Ryzen 7  delivers a host of features that make enthusiasts swoon, such as an unlocked multiplier, backward compatibility with 300-series motherboards, solder between the heat spreader and die, and an LED-equipped cooler. We only wish that B450-based motherboards were available at launch time. Hopefully we hear more about AMD's lower-cost platform soon.</p><p>In a broader sense, AMD is delivering on its first update to the Ryzen processor series, proving that it can execute on its roadmap. It looks like it's going to be another busy year in the CPU space--and that's more good news for enthusiasts and gamers.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ AMD Ryzen 5 2400G Review: Zen, Meet Vega ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-2400g-zen-vega-cpu-gpu,5467.html</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ AMD designed its new Ryzen processors with Vega graphics to play AAA games at 1080p with low-quality settings. Does the flagship Ryzen 5 2400G deliver on those promises? ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">aRhYq5cHL2TGTAthWFiMvE</guid>
                                                                                                <enclosure url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2qN4XtNWBifUxLyArkF73b-1280-80.png" type="image/png" length="0"></enclosure>
                                                                        <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                <updated>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:29:20 +0000</updated>
                                                                                                                                            <category><![CDATA[CPUs]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[PC Components]]></category>
                                                                                                <author><![CDATA[ palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) ]]></author>                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ Paul Alcorn ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                    <dc:source><![CDATA[ https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RZRmFeQfPy3etHjBQitbGW.jpeg ]]></dc:source>
                                                                <dc:description><![CDATA[ &lt;p&gt;As a teenager, Paul scraped up enough money to buy a 486-powered PC with a turbo button (yes, a turbo button). Back when floppies were still popular he was already chasing after the fastest spinners for his personal computer, which led him down the long and winding storage road, covering enterprise storage. His current focus is on consumer processors, though he still keeps a close eye on the latest storage news. In his spare time, you’ll find Paul hanging out with his kids or indulging his love of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.&lt;/p&gt; ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <media:content type="image/png" url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2qN4XtNWBifUxLyArkF73b-1280-80.png">
                                                            <media:credit><![CDATA[null]]></media:credit>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    </media:content>
                                                    <media:thumbnail url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2qN4XtNWBifUxLyArkF73b-1280-80.png" />
                                                                                                                                                                    <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <p>Gamers on a budget know that there aren&apos;t many options for affordable platforms capable of passable performance, especially with mainstream graphics cards flying off shelves and landing in cryptocurrency mining rigs. AMD aims to give those folks an all-in-one solution with a fresh wave of what the company once called Accelerated Processing Units. Although it&apos;s shying away from using APU these days, the new Raven Ridge chips combine host processing, graphics, memory control, and fixed-function accelerators, just like their predecessors. One of the <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">best gaming CPUs</a> you can buy, the flagship Ryzen 5 2400G comes with four SMT-enabled Zen cores and 11 Radeon Vega Compute Units that deliver up to 1.76 TFLOPS. According to AMD, it should be fast enough to run some AAA games at 1080p with low-quality detail settings.</p><p>The Raven Ridge family follows last year&apos;s Summit Ridge debut, where we were introduced to AMD&apos;s Zen architecture in CPU form, without integrated graphics. The 4.8-billion-transistor Zeppelin die allowed AMD to cram eight cores, lots of cache, and plenty of PCIe into a Socket AM4 interface. But it was only an option if you were pairing it up to a discrete GPU. Obviously, that left out the masses content with integrated graphics. Before now, those folks could either pick between Intel&apos;s modern Core processors or the aging Bristol Ridge APUs, with Excavator cores and GCN 3.0-based graphics.</p><p>Clearly, AMD&apos;s Zen design needed a companion, and the Vega graphics architecture was a logical choice for modernizing the company&apos;s portfolio. Though enthusiasts have mixed feelings about Radeon RX Vega 64 and 56 cards, we&apos;ll soon see that the graphics architecture works particularly well in an integrated package. As proof, even <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-amd-radeon-vega-gpu,36250.html">Intel is leaning on Vega graphics for its Kaby Lake-G processors</a>.</p><p>Raven Ridge couldn&apos;t hit the market at a more interesting time. We&apos;re weathering the worst GPU shortage ever as cryptocurrency miners snatch up discrete cards in bulk to fuel their bullish outlooks on Ethereum and other altcoins. So, PC gamers may be willing to consider less expensive hardware to tide them over until add-in boards become more affordable. And those who consider Raven Ridge for its value may stay for some fun, because we’re finding that these processors are great for tuners and enthusiasts alike. </p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:280px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:75.00%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MScuqJd2xWGaLkhVhgdzBE.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MScuqJd2xWGaLkhVhgdzBE.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="280" height="210" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MScuqJd2xWGaLkhVhgdzBE.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><h2 id="climbing-raven-ridge">Climbing Raven Ridge</h2><p>At least to start, Raven Ridge is available in two SKUs. Again, the flagship Ryzen 5 2400G boasts four Zen cores with simultaneous multi-threading and 11 CUs, yielding 704 Stream processors. It should be priced around $170.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:668px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:46.56%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vzjhKpxcXuRfpYp8eeZb5M.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vzjhKpxcXuRfpYp8eeZb5M.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="668" height="311" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vzjhKpxcXuRfpYp8eeZb5M.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>There's also a Ryzen 3 2200G that comes with four physical cores (without SMT) and eight CUs (512 Stream processors) for a mere $100. AMD positions this processor for the eSports crowd interested in 720p gaming.</p><p>Both Raven Ridge models make good on AMD's promise to support the AM4 platform until 2020; they drop into standard Socket AM4 interfaces on motherboards with display outputs. Of course, existing boards need a firmware update to recognize the new models, while newer platforms will include a "Ryzen Desktop 2000 Ready" badge signaling drop-in compatibility.</p><h2 id="specifications">Specifications</h2><p>AMD continues with its basic value proposition of offering unlocked ratio multipliers on all of its processors. And now you can optimize the on-die graphics, too. A refined memory controller officially supports DDR4-2933 (up from DDR4-2666) for dual-channel kits, and also touts improved memory overclocking capabilities. That's an important improvement for extracting maximum performance from an SoC heavily dependent on available bandwidth.</p><p>Interestingly, these new processors will replace the existing Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 3 1200 models. Many of the notable differences between those older CPUs and the new ones are tied to a single four-core <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ccx-definition-cpu-core-explained,6338.html">CCX (Core Complex)</a> design and AMD's 14nm+ process. The outgoing Ryzen models employed two CCXes, leaving no room on the die for a graphics engine.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ></td><td  ><strong>Ryzen 5 2400G</strong></td><td  ><strong>Ryzen 5 1400</strong></td><td  ><strong>Ryzen 3 2200G</strong></td><td  ><strong>Ryzen 3 1200</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Socket</strong></td><td  >AM4</td><td  >AM4</td><td  >AM4</td><td  >AM4</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>CPU Cores / Threads</strong></td><td  >4 / 8</td><td  >4 / 8</td><td  >4 / 4</td><td  >4 / 4</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>CPU Base/Boost Frequency (GHz)</strong></td><td  >3.6 / 3.9</td><td  >3.2 / 3.4</td><td  >3.5 / 3.7</td><td  >3.1 / 3.2</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>iGPU CUs</strong></td><td  >11 (704 ALUs)</td><td  >X</td><td  >8 (512 ALUs)</td><td  >X</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>iGPU Clock (MHz)</strong></td><td  >up to 1250</td><td  >X</td><td  >up to 1100</td><td  >X</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>L3 Cache</strong></td><td  >4MB</td><td  >8MB</td><td  >4MB</td><td  >8MB</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Memory Speed</strong></td><td  >up to DDR4-2933</td><td  >up to DDR4-2666</td><td  >up to DDR4-2933</td><td  >up to DDR4-2666</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>PCIe 3.0 Lanes</strong></td><td  >8</td><td  >16</td><td  >8</td><td  >16</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>TDP </strong></td><td  >65W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >65W</td><td  >65W</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Process</strong></td><td  >14nm+</td><td  >14nm</td><td  >14nm+</td><td  >14nm</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>MSRP</strong></td><td  >$170</td><td  >$170</td><td  >$100</td><td  >$110</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>The move to a single CCX eliminates the need for communication between distant groups of cores, so memory and cache access latency is more consistent than we've seen from other Ryzen models. Then again, each CCX usually has 8MB of cache. AMD took the redesign a step further and also reduced the amount of cache on a single CCX, so the Raven Ridge chips only come with 4MB of L3 cache. Fortunately, gaming tends to prefer lower memory latency over high capacity. We'll explore this in more depth through our benchmarks, though.</p><p>AMD also tells us that its 14nm+ manufacturing process is more efficient than what came before, facilitating higher operating frequencies. Sure enough, both new Ryzen chips enjoy a 400 MHz base clock rate improvement over Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 3 1200. Moreover, those older CPUs utilized a dual-core Precision Boost feature. But now the company is using a more sophisticated multi-core Precision Boost 2 algorithm that can accelerate by up to 500 MHz.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:2560px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:46.99%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gY8Wmcb6rv7Ze6UA8NWKJN.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gY8Wmcb6rv7Ze6UA8NWKJN.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="2560" height="1203" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gY8Wmcb6rv7Ze6UA8NWKJN.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>PCI Express 3.0 connectivity is still available through the Raven Ridge processors. You get four lanes dedicated to the chipset and four more that work well for connecting PCIe-based storage. An additional eight lanes are available for attaching discrete graphics, though that's unfortunately a step back from Summit Ridge-based CPUs with 16 extra lanes. Then again, we don't expect anyone to run a multi-GPU config on an entry-level platform.</p><p>Then there's the issue of pricing. Ryzen 5 2400G features the same number of CPU threads and cores at the same price as Ryzen 5 1400, but now it also includes integrated graphics. The same applies to Ryzen 3 2200G versus Ryzen 3 1200, though in that case, you'll actually pay $10 less for Raven Ridge. This puts Ryzen 3 2200G up against some of Intel's Pentium processors. Both AMD models include a bundled 65W cooler, too.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  >Memory Support</td><td  >Speed</td></tr><tr><td  >2 DIMMS - Single Rank</td><td  >up to DDR4-2933</td></tr><tr><td  >4 DIMMS - Single Rank</td><td  >up to DDR4-2133</td></tr><tr><td  >2 DIMMS - Dual Rank</td><td  >up to DDR4-2667</td></tr><tr><td  >4 DIMMS - Dual Rank</td><td  >up to DDR4-1866</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G are rated at 65W, just like Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 3 1200. That means swapping out one CCX for a handful of Compute Units ends up being a wash for power. AMD points out that all AM4 motherboards support 95W as a basic requirement, even in the mini-ITX form factor. This leaves plenty of headroom for overclocking. We're also expecting 400-series motherboards to surface in April, along with Zen+ CPUs. Those boards will be less expensive than what we have now, and we anticipate that they'll incorporate lower power consumption, better multi-hub USB throughput, improved power delivery, and memory layout optimizations. All of the existing Ryzen models will drop right in.</p><p>As mentioned, AMD doesn't want to call its Raven Ridge chips APUs, perhaps in an effort to shed preconceived notions of lackluster performance from the previous-gen implementations. To AMD's credit, Raven Ridge is an entirely new beast. But the company now wants us to call its flagship the AMD Ryzen 5 2400G with Radeon Vega Graphics. No matter what you call it, though, the 2400G is a powerful chip for $170.</p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="zen-meet-vega">Zen, Meet Vega</h2><p>If you missed our coverage of the Zen design, check out <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-zen-cpu-microarchitecture,32540.html">Everything Zen: AMD Presents New Microarchitecture At HotChips</a>. We're not going that deep in today's review. But to better understand how the Raven Ridge die operates, we have to take a quick look at the Zeppelin silicon that made Ryzen famous.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1510px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:43.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="Zeppelin Die" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MFJacQXHv9xuFcLT6qGitR.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MFJacQXHv9xuFcLT6qGitR.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1510" height="663" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MFJacQXHv9xuFcLT6qGitR.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div><figcaption itemprop="caption description" class="pull-"><span class="caption-text">Zeppelin Die </span></figcaption></figure><p>The Zen microarchitecture centers on a four-core CCX building block. AMD complements each CCX with an 8MB L3 cache split into four slices. Two CCXes (we outlined one in green) come together to create an eight-core Zeppelin die. All Ryzen desktop processors, until now, featured the same underlying design, regardless of the number of active cores.</p><p>CCXes communicate with each other via AMD’s Infinity Fabric, which is an optimized version of HyperTransport, and share memory controllers over the bus. This is basically two quad-core CPUs talking to each other over an on-die interconnect that also handles northbridge and PCIe traffic.</p><p>Raven Ridge essentially replaces the second CCX with a graphics engine. Now, the die is divided up into one CCX, Vega Graphics, and the uncore. The uncore includes an Infinity Controller, the Infinity Fabric, and the I/O and System Hub. Whereas Zeppelin is composed of 4.8 billion transistors across 213mm<sup>2</sup>, the Raven Ridge die below has 4.94 billion transistors and measures 209.8mm<sup>2</sup>.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1510px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:60.66%;"><img id="" name="" alt="Raven Ridge Die" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ctGH4dyCxWRdgeamtD4k3T.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ctGH4dyCxWRdgeamtD4k3T.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1510" height="916" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ctGH4dyCxWRdgeamtD4k3T.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div><figcaption itemprop="caption description" class="pull-"><span class="caption-text">Raven Ridge Die  </span></figcaption></figure><p>Unlike previous Ryzen products, all four execution cores reside in a single CCX (orange block to the left in the image above). That means an application running on multiple cores does not have to traverse the Infinity Fabric to communicate with other cores and cache. We know from past tests that working across the Infinity Fabric with a set of “remote” cores (and cache) can negatively affect performance in latency-sensitive applications, such as games. Raven Ridge’s single CCX should fare better in those situations.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2qN4XtNWBifUxLyArkF73b.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MFJacQXHv9xuFcLT6qGitR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tLXMyKwFvXngBp5PUGKvoj.jpg" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>We outlined the four-core CCXes with green boxes. Similar to what you've seen from AMD's Zeppelin die, the center of a Raven Ridge CCX contains vertical rows of L3 cache. Of course, a Zeppelin CCX has four rows of L3 cache units in the center, which add up to 8MB. The Raven Ridge CCX only sports two rows, giving us 4MB. That means Raven Ridge's L3 capacity isn't an arbitrary restriction or the product of market segmentation. Rather, it was an architectural design choice.</p><p>The orange block in the upper-left corner of Raven Ridge contains the interconnect circuitry and control units. That's in the same place on Zeppelin. But the DDR4 memory controllers and platform I/O circuitry around the edges move to different locations. Work definitely went into getting this die's layout just right, and even though the cores themselves appear identical, the CCX design is new. </p><p>Raven Ridge processors use Infinity Fabric to connect the CPU cores and on-die Vega CUs (the blue block on the right). But the fabric is merely a protocol. That means it can travel through a number of physical connections, such as interposers, PCB traces, or internal PCIe lanes. One could guess that the protocol operates over an internal PCIe bus, and that the graphics engine consumes some available connectivity, thus trimming Raven Ridge's externally-accessible lanes down to eight. It's also possible that the drop from 16 to eight lanes was another design choice, just like less L3 cache.</p><p>As we've <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-game-performance,5207-2.html">demonstrated</a>, increasing the system's memory frequency also improves Infinity Fabric throughput, speeding transfers between the execution cores and CUs. And of course, the Vega-based graphics engine stands to benefit greatly from more memory bandwidth, so you'll want to crank up DDR4 frequencies up as much as possible for better performance.</p><p>Unfortunately, we can't yet measure Infinity Fabric latency improvements with existing tools, though we're working on ways around that. In the meantime, we ran some benchmarks on the new cache hierarchy. Despite Ryzen 5 2400G's lower cache capacity, we are expecting speed-ups attributable to design tweaks.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ></td><td  ><strong>L1</strong></td><td  ><strong>L2</strong></td><td  ><strong>L3</strong></td><td  ><strong>Main Memory</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Range</strong></td><td  >2KB - 32KB</td><td  >32KB - 512KB</td><td  >512KB - 8MB</td><td  >8MB - 1GB</td></tr></tbody></table></div><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CjrjJbyWaJPJUZdPQiAvLg.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/pPcfwUn822duD3rc599NsR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YGtyqdeiUJEnYEgfYEpsHa.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TjJovdNkoZDcERHLKB3LUM.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sUAJrgoFA7bcHPDZ9sppNG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/L94jH2a4L5p8w8RbDartje.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/22RSQxwHvaVkr7yLJK34Je.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/njak3HsAQBU6r59vGbLoBU.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>From a high level, Ryzen 5 2400G's single-threaded cache throughput remains comparable with the previous-gen Ryzen. But multi-threaded throughput declines significantly due to fewer responding regions.</p><p>As a result of the new single-CCX design and other tweaks, we observe the lowest L2 and L3 cache latency seen from a Ryzen CPU. That's a good omen of what we might see from latency-sensitive applications. This trend holds true for all three types of data access, which <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-game-performance,5207-2.html">we've explained in-depth</a>. We also provide zoomed-out versions of the latency measurements that show main memory latency. The 2400G excels in the sequential and full random access tests to main memory.</p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="14nm-amp-precision-boost-2">14nm+ & Precision Boost 2</h2><p>According to AMD, its 14nm+ process is denser and more power-efficient than the 14nm node it was using previously. However, the company isn't sharing much beyond those claims. To be clear, this is not the <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-vega-12nm-lp-2018,35502.html">GlobalFoundries 12nm LP process that AMD will transition to in April</a> when the Zen+ processors are expected to launch. That new process will provide even more of a performance boost over the current 14nm+ LPP FinFET.</p><p>We do know that 14nm+ enables higher frequencies at a given voltage, which AMD turns into higher base and boost clocks. The company also improved its Precision Boost 2 feature, which is comparable to Intel's multi-core Turbo Boost technology.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1256px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:53.26%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2AGb8VFJ49bUG7qjZD3Sne.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2AGb8VFJ49bUG7qjZD3Sne.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1256" height="669" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2AGb8VFJ49bUG7qjZD3Sne.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p><span>Precision Boost 2 is a DVFS (Dynamic Voltage Frequency Scaling) implementation designed to improve performance in multi-threaded workloads. </span>AMD's current-gen Ryzen processors only offer dual-core or all-core boost frequencies. But the Precision Boost 2 algorithms operate on anywhere from one to eight active threads. This should help Ryzen 5 2400G capitalize on the architecture's already-strong threaded performance. AMD can also now control the frequency and voltage of each core independently (in the past, Ryzen processors could only adjust each CCX as an entire unit).</p><p>This technology should help when relatively light threads keep other cores active. These lighter threads don't utilize a given core fully, but because the core is working on something, it can still cause the processor to drop from its dual-core turbo setting into a slower all-core frequency. Game engines are notorious for this type of behavior, often running several helper threads (such as audio) on different cores.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1242px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:53.06%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3y5kvxaVJkBbXtwt4ybRBC.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3y5kvxaVJkBbXtwt4ybRBC.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1242" height="659" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3y5kvxaVJkBbXtwt4ybRBC.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>AMD doesn't share a list of specific multi-core Precision Boost bins because the algorithm is truly opportunistic and will boost to different frequencies based upon temperature, current, and load. That isn't too surprising—<a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-coffee-lake-kaby-lake,35549.html">Intel also stopped sharing its multi-core Turbo Boost ratios</a> for similar reasons.</p><p>Precision Boost 2 is intricately woven into the capabilities of <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-2.html">AMD's SenseMI suite</a>. For instance, Pure Power uses an array of 1000 sensors to monitor all of those critical parameters, thus enabling real-time adjustments. This information flows through the Infinity Fabric. The coherent control and data interface services six different clients in the SoC, including the multimedia engines, display engine, DDR4 memory controllers, I/O and System Hub, host processing cores, and the graphics engine. AMD split the Infinity Fabric into control and data planes to optimize performance and granularity (1ms intervals) for the real-time telemetry data.</p><h2 id="power-enhancements">Power Enhancements</h2><p>As with any product destined for mobile applications, power is key. Raven Ridge-based SoCs have the ability to shut down different blocks in order to curb consumption. The SoC also uses internal and external (on the motherboard) voltage regulators that communicate with each other, but operate independently. This allows the processor to deactivate a regulator when it isn't needed, dropping the chip into a lower power state.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ETT6ScFwybtohZRjNPqsii.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Ujm5dBbyJxwZyMsczyQiKK.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kB8jnaPwpmQRuTBn7j26Uk.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/aSpogxBQPoFoYeBhr28HJB.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gzGAMHPHG7doRDuoXhkZW3.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yo4idjTw9EeK6oR4RZBnRW.jpg" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Intel's Kaby Lake and AMD's Bristol Ridge processors feature two power rails, one dedicated to the CPU and another dedicated to the GPU. Raven Ridge employs a single rail for both regions to enable power sharing. This allows the SoC to dedicate more current to regions that are experiencing heavier load, purportedly boosting performance.</p><p>Shutting off areas of the chip, or power gating, requires a fast resumption time (gate exit). Simply put, if you put a core to sleep, you want it to quickly resume activity when it's called upon. AMD implemented faster resumption times to allow power gating without negatively affecting the user experience.</p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="soc-amp-chipset-connectivity">SoC & Chipset Connectivity</h2><p>As we've discussed, Raven Ridge gets eight PCIe 3.0 lanes for add-in graphics, rather than Zeppelin's 16, along with four general-purpose lanes. This isn't a deal-breaker, though. Modern graphics cards (even the high-end ones) don't fully utilize wide PCIe links. Moreover, these processors include capable on-die graphics.</p><p>The processor also has its own USB and SATA controllers, which complement the I/O you get from an X370, B350, or A320 chipset.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ></td><td  ><strong>USB 3.2 Gen2</strong></td><td  ><strong>USB 3.1 Gen1</strong></td><td  ><strong>USB 2.0</strong></td><td  ><strong>PCIe Gen3 (Gfx)</strong></td><td  ><strong>PCIe Gen2 (General Use)</strong></td><td  ><strong>SATA</strong></td><td  ><strong>SATA Express</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Raven Ridge</strong></td><td  >4</td><td  >1</td><td  >1</td><td  >8 Lanes</td><td  >4 lanes</td><td  >2</td><td  >-</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>X370 Chipset Provides</strong></td><td  >2</td><td  >6</td><td  >6</td><td  >-</td><td  >8</td><td  >4</td><td  >2 (or 4 more SATA)</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>B350 Chipset Provides</strong></td><td  >2</td><td  >2</td><td  >6</td><td  >-</td><td  >6</td><td  >2</td><td  >2 (or 4 more SATA)</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>A320 Chipset Provides </strong></td><td  >1</td><td  >2</td><td  >6</td><td  >-</td><td  >-</td><td  >2</td><td  >-</td></tr></tbody></table></div><h2 id="display">Display</h2><p>Raven Ridge supports FreeSync with supported displays and motherboards. It also supports HDCP 1.4/2.2 for streaming 4K+HDR content. AMD plans to have a production-class PlayReady 3.0 DRM graphics driver in Q3, which you'll need to stream 4K content from Netflix. Wireless display via Miracast is also supported.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UrQSjv6MWDmwk5n5qTUKQm.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2hc4yrqtwtob6Wy2HXKuA.jpg" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The processors sport a wide range of hardware-accelerated video encode and decode features that execute on Vega's Video Core Next (VCN) silicon. Naturally, the most important comparison is to Intel's UHD Graphics 630, which has a broader range of hardware-accelerated video encode capabilities, such as MPEG-2, VP8, and VP9 8-bit. AMD does support VP9 10-bit decode, which Intel has yet to offer.</p><h2 id="the-vega-graphics-engine">The Vega Graphics Engine </h2><p>Chris Angelini covered the Vega architecture in-depth in our <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64,5173.html">AMD Radeon Vega RX 64 8GB Review</a>, so check that story out for more detail on Vega itself.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:729px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:105.49%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VuxBJ9hghKHrudkdohmjoL.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VuxBJ9hghKHrudkdohmjoL.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="729" height="769" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VuxBJ9hghKHrudkdohmjoL.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Ryzen 5 2400G features a Vega-based graphics engine with 11 Compute Units, while the lower-end Ryzen 3 2200G includes eight CUs. The 2400G wields 44 texture units (four per CU), 704 Stream processors, and 16 ROPs. That's an impressive list of resources crammed next to a quad-core CPU. But it pales in comparison to Radeon RX Vega 64's 4096 Stream processors.</p><p>AMD uses the same Raven Ridge die for its mobile and desktop products. As such, Ryzen 5 2400G looks a lot like the Ryzen Mobile 7 2700U, though the 2400G features an extra CU. It also has a lower maximum graphics frequency of 1250 MHz compared to the 7200U's 1300 MHz.</p><p>Ryzen 3 2200G and the Ryzen Mobile 5 2500U both have eight CUs, and they share the same 1100 MHz peak graphics clock rate.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1088px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:21.23%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MgnCFEgSGQzGptDXANCDqc.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MgnCFEgSGQzGptDXANCDqc.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1088" height="231" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MgnCFEgSGQzGptDXANCDqc.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Of course, comparisons to <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-amd-radeon-vega-gpu,36250.html">Intel's Kaby Lake-G</a> family are inevitable. Those Intel models come with two flavors of Radeon RX Vega graphics: 100W processors featuring "GH" graphics and 65W models with "GL" graphics.</p><p>The GH implementation sports 24 CUs and 1536 Stream processors. It features a base clock of 1063 MHz that accelerates up to 1190 MHz, plus 4GB of HBM2 (4-hi stack) directly attached via <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-emib-interconnect-fpga-chiplet,35316.html">Intel's EMIB technology</a>. Single-precision performance tops out at 3.7 TFLOPS, compared to the 2400G's 1.76 TFLOPS.</p><p>Taking a step down, the GL graphics engine features 20 CUs. Lower base/boost frequencies of 931 and 1011 MHz, respectively, further differentiate the two configurations. Intel does maintain 4GB of HBM2. But peak compute performance falls to 2.6 TFLOPS compared to the 2200G's 1.126 TFLOPS. </p><p>Aside from the brawnier allocation of CUs on Intel's Kaby Lake-G models, they also profit from HBM2 and its massive throughput advantage. Raven Ridge is fed by much slower DDR4 system memory. While overclocking is going to help augment AMD's stock graphics performance, Intel is going to enjoy the leg up in frame rate comparisons.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cAn3bcirFvepwKCyFpw9LF.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5QkyDmUTvqfGbhQGnhqHNg.jpg" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>As an aside, AMD announced the Radeon Vega Mobile at this year's CES. It features HBM2 and the same 1.7mm Z-height as Intel's Kaby Lake-G processors. With Kaby Lake-G going into Intel's NUC form factor, there's a chance we could see AMD take a similar path to the desktop. That would give those CUs a lot more bandwidth to work with, if the company could incorporate the solution into a high-end processor. This also raises questions of whether Intel would make EMIB available to AMD.</p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="power-amp-thermals-briefly">Power & Thermals, Briefly</h2><p>We love that AMD uses Indium solder between its die and heat spreader on Ryzen CPUs. However, the company broke from tradition and applied non-metallic thermal interface material to its 2000-series processors. AMD claims this is necessary, given their low cost. Both Raven Ridge-based processors are rated for 65W and Ryzen CPUs typically only hit ~4 GHz anyway, so we don't foresee significant problems with heat dissipation from the die to the IHS.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:2560px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:55.16%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nq22sV9WAJyruEBSUCZChY.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nq22sV9WAJyruEBSUCZChY.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="2560" height="1412" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nq22sV9WAJyruEBSUCZChY.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>AMD bundles its Wraith Stealth cooler with these processors. The aluminum-core sink is designed for 65W chips, so you'll want a beefier aftermarket solution for aggressive overclocking. The down-blowing design usually helps with additional airflow over voltage regulation circuitry, which is a nice bonus. However, it doesn't come with the bright LEDs like AMD's higher-end models. The company does sell its 125W Wraith Max for $45.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZaUDosKQTzw8RihCjEAwwR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/q76Cx8U65EZDVoXQZoDZaa.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>We can generate multiple power consumption and thermal profiles for a processor with such a beefy graphics engine. Some applications tax the CPU cores or GPU, while others spread load between the units. There are a number of ways to represent the data and interpret its impact. As a result, we're s<a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-raven-ridge-thermal-power-benchmarking,5464.html">plitting that part of our review into a separate story</a>. We also have a couple of slides under <em>The Witcher 3</em> to give you an idea of how these processors behave in a real-world game.</p><h2 id="overclocking-5">Overclocking</h2><p>Overclocking with AMD's Ryzen Master utility is simple. The execution cores responded readily to our efforts, and the Ryzen 5 2400G floated up to 4 GHz with a 1.4V vCore setting. We also adjusted the VDDCR SoC voltage, which is a single rail that feeds the uncore and graphics domains, to 1.25V. That allowed us to dial in an easy 1555 MHz graphics clock rate and push the memory up to DDR4-3200 with 14-14-14-34 timings.</p><p>A Noctua NH-U12S SE-AM4 cooler helped us circumvent thermal challenges (we measured 75°C under the AIDA CPU/GPU stress test).</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1510px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:57.88%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/p3GZjHVtrKW9GZyeaGKUwS.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/p3GZjHVtrKW9GZyeaGKUwS.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1510" height="874" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/p3GZjHVtrKW9GZyeaGKUwS.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>We tested gaming at 1280x720 and 1920x1080, but didn't have time to run comparison tests with the BIOS-enabled UMA frame buffer setting. Increasing this setting allocates more system memory to the on-die graphics, although it also chews into memory available for other tasks. As you can see in the screenshot above, the graphics subsystem consumes system memory at stock settings, so allocating even more is a bit of a trade-off. Shared GPU memory is RAM that the system dynamically provisions between the CPU or GPU based on workload. By default, the operating system limits this shared pool to half of the system memory's total capacity.</p><p>AMD says the benefit of a larger UMA frame buffer is evident in the ability to specify higher levels of detail. Just don't expect faster frame rates at 1080p. This should be an interesting setting to experiment with. Right out of the gate, AMD says that a user with 16GB of DDR4 would benefit from assigning 4GB to the graphics engine.</p><h2 id="test-methodology-amp-systems">Test Methodology & Systems</h2><p>AMD's Raven Ridge performs best with Windows 10 Build 1709, so we fully updated our test systems before benchmarking. The latest Windows build adds Multi-Plane Overlay, which provides a more efficient way of rendering video and compositing 2D surfaces. It also saves power by alpha-blending accelerated surfaces and culling the ones you cannot see. That major change means you cannot compare these test results to previous reviews. </p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:2560px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:81.45%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/b5qyT4tQUn4DcAfx9Aq7gf.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/b5qyT4tQUn4DcAfx9Aq7gf.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="2560" height="2085" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/b5qyT4tQUn4DcAfx9Aq7gf.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>AMD sent along the mini-ITX Gigabyte AB350N Gaming WiFi motherboard and a 2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 memory kit. We used the bundled Wraith Stealth cooler for testing applications and games at stock settings, then switched over to the aforementioned Noctua cooler for overclocking.</p><h2 id="test-systems-6">Test Systems </h2><div ><table><thead><tr><th  colspan="2"><strong>Test System & Configuration</strong></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Hardware</strong></td><td  ><strong>Gigabyte AB350N Gaming WiFi</strong><span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="AMD A10-9700" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113451">AMD A10-9700</a></span><span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="AMD Ryzen 5 2400G" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-2400g/p/N82E16819113480">AMD Ryzen 5 2400G</a></span><span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="Ryzen 3 2200G" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113481">Ryzen 3 2200G</a></span><span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="Flare X 16GB DDR4-3200" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232530">Flare X 16GB DDR4-3200</a></span> @ 2400, 2699, & 3200<strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z370)</strong><span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="Core i3-8100" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117822">Core i3-8100</a></span><span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="Core i5-8400" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="http://www.tkqlhce.com/click-8900246-12920453?sid=tomshardware-&url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117824">Core i5-8400</a></span><span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/MSI-Z370-GAMING-PRO-CARBON/dp/B075GYKNQY/?&tag=bom-tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC</a></span><span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 (2x 8GB)" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232217">G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 (2x 8GB)</a></span> @ 2400 & 2666<strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)</strong><span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="Intel Core i3-7100" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1304304-REG/intel_bx80677i37100_core_i3_7100_3_9_ghz.html/BI/8236/KBID/8940/SID/TomsHardware">Intel Core i3-7100</a></span><span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="MSI Z270 Gaming M7" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130969">MSI Z270 Gaming M7</a></span><span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 (2x 8GB)" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232217">G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 (2x 8GB)</a></span> @ 2400<strong>All</strong><span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="EVGA GTX 1080" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-Founders-Graphics-08G-P4-6180-KR/dp/B01FWI6F08?ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">EVGA GTX 1080</a></span><span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="Samsung PM863 (960GB)" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-PM863-MZ-7LM960Z-960GB-SATA3/dp/B011E7JV7A/?&tag=bom-tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Samsung PM863 (960GB)</a></span><span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="SilverStone ST1500-TI" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817256196">SilverStone ST1500-TI</a></span> <span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="Windows 10 Pro 64-bit" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832588491">Windows 10 Pro 64-bit</a></span>Creators Update v.1709 (10.0.16299.214)<span class="hawk-widget" data-widget-type="price" data-model-name="Hydro H115i" data-show-link="0" data-show-reviews="none" data-rows="1"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/Corsair-CW-9060027-WW-Extreme-Performance-Liquid/dp/B019955RNQ/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback">Hydro H115i</a></span></td></tr></tbody></table></div><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><p>We're matching the Intel CPUs up to an Nvidia GeForce GT 1030 add-in card, facilitating a more even comparison with AMD's Raven Ridge-based processors. We're also testing the Core i5-8400's UHD Graphics 630 engine and AMD's Bristol Ridge-based A10-9700 at 1280x720. We didn't bother benchmarking them at 1920x1080, and you'll see why.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Platform Cost</strong></td><td  ><strong>Ryzen 5 2400G</strong></td><td  ><strong>Ryzen 3 2200G</strong></td><td  ><strong>Core i5-8400</strong></td><td  ><strong>Core i3-8100</strong></td><td  ><strong>Core i3-7100</strong></td><td  ><strong>AMD A10-9700</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>MSRP</strong></td><td  >$169</td><td  >$99</td><td  >$187</td><td  >$119</td><td  >$117</td><td  >$99</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>+GPU</strong></td><td  >-</td><td  >-</td><td  >$89</td><td  >$89</td><td  >$89</td><td  >-</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Total Platform Cost</strong></td><td  ><strong>$169</strong></td><td  ><strong>$99</strong></td><td  ><strong>$276</strong></td><td  ><strong>$208</strong></td><td  ><strong>$206</strong></td><td  ><strong>$99</strong></td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>Pairing the Intel processors with a GeForce GT 1030 makes them more competitive, but it also increases platform cost dramatically. Keep those price differences in mind as you peruse the test results.</p>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="40e7abf7-358d-4170-b0f9-cb95f9740aab">            <a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113451" data-model-name="AMD A10-9700" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:113.74%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZaPczivz9KD9EBr6feJCxV.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD A10-9700</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="3ce51ff6-acf6-4a91-b51b-f3219f015bc7">            <a href="https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-2400g/p/N82E16819113480" data-model-name="AMD Ryzen 5 2400G" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:56.27%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DZExeSyS6Ex9Yzvkj2QC9e.png" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 5 2400G</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="901307bc-a9d6-440e-962c-0e09fbeb6410">            <a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113481" data-model-name="Ryzen 3 2200G" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:75.00%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zwVLqte5k92RL5HZjCYRNK.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 3 2200G</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div><h2 id="3dmark">3DMark </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/bFGb577p54DYH5hneR2fRh.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HYHfT5z2ZWWWbQkGN4pTuS.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the raw amount of horsepower available to game engines. The Ryzen 5 2400G takes an easy lead over AMD's Ryzen 3 2200G. Both processors feature four physical cores, but the 2400G's SMT functionality helps keep the hardware better-utilized.</p><p>Overclocking delivers a big benefit, too. The 2400G scales up 16.5% in the Fire Strike workload and 13% in Time Spy after a bit of tuning.</p><p>We normally run VRMark as part of the standard suite, but none of our contenders passed the minimum threshold of 109 FPS.</p><h2 id="battlefield-1">Battlefield 1</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/szKLPfFquiEZzwc6prU47Y.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Kz94XeEQETAigxskBpZdnF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WHKAiwfYhayaVN3eJarwUi.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FYHuB3KyGJqQ698fAyXp5g.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/at96JfFi4xJfLZynk2LzEU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Ej2DJmg7octVYM9mzfFuZm.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GPryNWcFJP7A5DZL3AdH69.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iWpySqhcVXMCNLoUNtPvz6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FvtC7S7Txa2PBockmrf5Lc.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/EeXZUrQcNPiiCefgZbuAqW.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Ryzen 5 2400G enjoys a significant uplift after a bit of tuning, jumping 18.5% in the 720p benchmark. Even at stock settings, however, it's an effective gaming processor, yielding a 67.9 FPS average. Although we dropped the quality settings a bit, the game could be played smoothly.</p><p>Needless to say, Intel's UHD Graphics 630 is out of its element, much like AMD's previous-gen A10-9700.</p><p>Make sure to flip through our 1080p test results. We set the quality preset to Low, yet still ran into a few hitches with Ryzen 5 2400G. It really benefited from overclocking though, jumping up 16.3% after tuning and smoothing out some of those wrinkles. The Core i5-8400 and i3-8100 paired with a GeForce GT 1030 demonstrated slightly lower frame rates than the overclocked Ryzen 5 2400G, but provided a smoother experience.</p><p>We received a BIOS and graphics driver update late in the review cycle that improved AMD's performance and consistency. It's plausible that future updates may also help. </p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="civilization-vi-ai-test-7">Civilization VI AI Test</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8P2x4MSEC9JrbkVDP8dhFB.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8P2x4MSEC9JrbkVDP8dhFB.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8P2x4MSEC9JrbkVDP8dhFB.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p><em>Civilization's </em>AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game. As you can see, AMD's Ryzen 5 2400G really excels after some tuning, going so far as to beat Intel's Core i5-8400. Notably, a stock Ryzen 5 2400G also bests the Core i3-8100, which could be due in part to the Core i3's lack of Turbo Boost (Intel limits the chip to a static 3.6 GHz, while AMD's 2400G jumps up to 3.9 GHz).</p><p>The A10-9700 serves as a great reminder of how far AMD has come since navigating away from the Bulldozer architecture.</p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-test-7">Civilization VI Graphics Test</h2><p>If your eyes keep wandering over to that overclocked Ryzen 3 2200G, you aren't alone. AMD positions the 2200G for lower-resolution gaming, but we also experimented with the overclocked 2200G configuration and included its results at 1920x1080. We're focusing on Ryzen 5 2400G for this review. However, we plan to expand our test pool to include Intel's Pentium G4620 for our Ryzen 3 2200G coverage. The Pentium family badly needs a challenger, and Ryzen 3 2200G seems up to the task.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Didzjb4UiX2eTsNWxVeHWg.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mKAxEcdyJjuWcjrpdYEGvb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iWAHgKLkRtujgzyhs83NZF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/9YAR9SfzwL4CorwFxxvaTL.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PrSH8yTeSeWpHh4FCcNgpb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3jtPniBwHwbpB4Xttz64BE.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5YfHYUwxrzZTsYcUvy7e4V.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mkhaSMyhfX5ZjZqeWqaNRY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TAYnzw47dGzQPJLZnKttkR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KraWTQJKo8aDoHHmE26Yk4.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Ryzen 5 2400G tops our 720p chart after some tuning, and the plucky 2200G isn't far behind. We averaged 63.1 FPS with the 2400G, representing a 12% speed-up over stock. Using Medium graphics settings for both sets of tests, the Ryzen 5 2400G surprisingly encountered more variance at stock settings during the 720p run than it did at 1080p. This reinforces our hypothesis that AMD needs to continue optimizing its graphics drivers. Tuning easily overcomes those hiccups though, and the 2400G tops our charts by a large margin.</p><h2 id="dota-2">Dota 2</h2><p><em>Dota 2</em> was one of the first games to receive a patch with Zen-specific optimizations.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BpAhAFWFNE99JnwEXkYnLH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CRuhb9nkY6hLvBaCZrEvPF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xSB9FJhiAQB9v678EszdHn.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UCGAMZhrVUGyko8pcBiX2e.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SiK3j7zyFgWPFh6aPip2dJ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nrFJNzbKwymEUypabUcGRL.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wTJfYYtTViwtKQ76537HeY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VDAmJPFJJWhSf2MCRWjgmV.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/oNrodpQ3wtwuyhrNKU6Pxf.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nGyCvR7vb5vV5HQ6uAfGVN.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Core i5-8400 and i3-8100 hit a graphics bottleneck during the 720p benchmark, while the Ryzen processors trail even after tuning. It is hard to call 104.3 FPS at 720p problematic, though.</p><p>AMD's overclocked Ryzen 5 2400G serves up 63.4 FPS at 1080p using medium-quality settings, yielding a smooth gaming experience.</p><p>Intel's UHD Graphics 630 engine and the A10-9700 are simply unplayable at 720p with these settings.</p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="far-cry-primal-6">Far Cry Primal</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wCQzJyHWQyR5yZoHngXwcK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uvJY7ztNbGckH8bfp56bv9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QPRy9fRMaikx4RSp4AKmkN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/euwanchshJ6W76nGpQzCnC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZjLYT2hDP5ngXm8gaX2cJ5.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xRZYChm4xPMH4qLMStxTqW.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XQNJDmL6pRXcQ6D9S7Vwg8.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3V2bqerwHQnG6cHokCT8tj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QmxNWi8U3WGGzLFar3KZak.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Pgv8TqUtL6y3VT6Cxj3DAX.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>We were a bit surprised to see <em>Far Cry Primal</em> in AMD's list of suggested benchmarks, so we decided to give it a shot using the lowest-quality settings possible. As it turns out, the game is playable on Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G processors at 720p. However, all of our contenders run into trouble at 1080p.</p><h2 id="grand-theft-auto-v-7">Grand Theft Auto V</h2><p><em>Grand Theft Auto V</em> finds the Core i5-8400 averaging a ridiculous 166.7 FPS at 720p. This result is so far from our expectations that we re-tested using several measurement utilities to confirm. We're still not sure how to explain the outcome.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8J6x9mY7Yhbh5Aut5qsLiS.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NhCN6RKRC9fhjKX7rb5CYL.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7kVLUJbGDHM94FcjFK6nFY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RZv2zdAopkThaEnyFvBry3.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/dUiDCmzT6bSEksqXWqXhH6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GbD2yKa5exNcFSjBZRexRY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/U3f4aM3gKDvRUwpXtZ9yMk.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Xb6ejFJCW8h7kbr53fxc2D.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yodN3o9HiLCRW6JzAA9qDA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6nsAPGfdhqtyMKRn9DmRqH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2p5aDiviLtw3eAbVK3bRER.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Our results at 720p emphasize why you should consider average and minimum frame rates incomplete without frame time data. Even though the averages show most processors offering great performance, frame time plots reveal nasty-looking outliers from several configurations. A second chart with the Core i3-8100 and -7100 removed show Ryzen 5 2400G providing a nice, flat line of frame times through our 720p benchmark. But the Core i5-8400 and its abnormally-high average runs into several frame time spikes that manifest as visible stuttering. We even reproduced those results several times.</p><p>The Core i5-8400 oddly doesn't experience the same variance at 1080p, and neither do the Core i3 models. We're testing with a relatively new test image to accommodate Raven Ridge, so there's still some troubleshooting to do.</p><p>Regardless, the Ryzen 5 2400G fares well at 720p. And although it isn't stellar at 1920x1080, it's still playable.</p><h2 id="the-witcher-3-wild-hunt">The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/JCLugNQLoFUUxntPk29EKn.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/638MN54pCDHJezh4K7BZe9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/J9vYKAtNUUy23FZYH9vhFd.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3FiK9V4CLALyVkyF29xAvD.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DYYYaj6fyHjTt49dkfJhyj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Tr2VREiqb88UceRZUBerRR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KwhnwUDhhbcjJ5zBCRhrTn.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/c6ByWRsZmFnAoafBsXwUoZ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2p5aDiviLtw3eAbVK3bRER.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/72A9tfYWvQcJMtvEHyhzWa.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt</em> plays surprisingly well on most systems (except the A10-9700 and UHD Graphics 630 engine, of course).</p><p>Ryzen 5 2400G takes the lead at both resolutions after applying our overclock. All of the systems suffer a frame time spike at the same point during our test corresponding to a scene transition.</p><p>We can confidently recommend the Ryzen 5 2400G for 1080p gaming at low settings in <em>The Witcher 3</em>. The game plays really well. </p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="adobe-creative-cloud-7">Adobe Creative Cloud</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mf7yPLPf5d9rQEwDbD8KmT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Bwdb72cLcjSxbPh6jd73qL.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/AixTkuRcmxdcCgaHHXCogC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iBAX4iRwpGYSHWyU2gENf8.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/JxAZzP8dcFdoZHJrNXNSFg.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Li4N9Es8uioj6HwUHjAtU7.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>AMD's Ryzen 5 2400G beats the Ryzen 3 2200G in our Adobe suite, though a stock 2200G does pull off a few marginal wins in Photoshop.</p><p>The real winners are Intel's Core i5-8400 and i3-8100, though. Core i3-7100 is competitive against the stock Ryzen processors, but once again Intel's locked multipliers are a liability. The Ryzen models jump ahead after tuning.</p><h2 id="web-browser-7">Web Browser</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/o5pQo43pnUYnbp6ZM4pcT5.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/d65uMczg7SebhetrLkN9FP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xgJeetCwZPgsSAzDK3peRj.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Web browser tests may not be the most demanding ones in our suite, but they are indicative of responsiveness in the most common workload for desktop computers.</p><p>The Krakken suite measures JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. It tends to go Intel's way due to the Core architecture's better per-core performance. This generalization holds true with AMD's Ryzen processors at their stock settings. However, overclocking allows the 2400G to carve out a lead. We see a similar outcome in WebXPRT.</p><p>The MotionMark benchmarks, which focus on testing graphics rather than JavaScript performance, are very sensitive to clock rate and IPC throughput. Not surprisingly, then, Intel's processors lead. </p><h2 id="productivity-7">Productivity</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/z28ZzZVZaTGvLbVvHKZAG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/bCdqYEv22j7wAEW9JzuWek.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jhs75mZ5is3bHpJhu68afg.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/aYtfJrVfKnHXurm2XQuqMC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GpjNC72QzTsZqkUcCn3HpR.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><span>The start-up test calculates load times for several types of applications, such as word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers, in both warm- and cold-start conditions. This metric historically favors Intel's processors. <br/></span></p><p><span><span>Video conferencing measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for video playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection during the workload. This complex task responds well to extra threads, so the overclocked Ryzen 5 2400G excels. Core i5-8400 does lead, but by less than the benchmark's inherent margin of error. <br/></span></span></p><p><span><span><span>The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries that use the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, and this time AMD's overclocked Ryzen 5 2400G wins (though again, by a slim margin). The 2400G isn't as convincing at stock settings, but it does beat the Core i3-8100 and -7100. <br/></span></span></span></p><p><span><span><span>The spreadsheet workload favors high clock rates and IPC throughput, so the Intel processors lead convincingly. <br/></span></span></span></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="rendering-7">Rendering </h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VwY7XJJ4h5WyU2Cho9Mb7K.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gak9SBp3xBYZjtoUYaipLU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TrQqNPsdKJv2SBtcTJ6Js8.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NdWQ3tUtR98VPedMJcpszc.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uxh886wCzVWesHpivwTCHG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4wPNoAHBBuMQ4RvpstqcMN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/9nvDnWtGSQjppXTE7F9pdR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6CnYws5Xrd9yerpVzJ2Pji.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/pTMJVHyVXFNMsqdMm6KA53.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>We expect Ryzen 5 2400G's eight threads to compete readily with the more expensive Core i5-8400's six physical cores in well-parallelized tasks. Although AMD never leads at stock settings, it at least holds its own after some casual overclocking.</p><p>The Core i5-8400 wins in every benchmark except one. However, the Ryzen 5 2400G is solid in tasks that fully utilize its SMT-enabled cores, such as Cinebench, Corona, and LuxMark.</p><p>As expected, the single-threaded benchmarks go Intel's way. Tuning does help Ryzen close the gap, though.</p><h2 id="encoding-amp-compression-7">Encoding & Compression</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/t8Gt9dcR8krLRQEJ3H8vNU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/V3nrENwu2BYpzLzYfvajCf.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HmRhyGvfgL64ZaGw8E3VeA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DP5BhWzU7NfLskUAh7iCM6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jcuL9tmyDAdxZpsJeeGMn8.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UzWURDzUjmaZAus5bse9Bj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7QAvPkHZSvnTDyEYygxGuT.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The Ryzen architecture has always excelled in decompression workloads. This continues with Raven Ridge. AMD's Ryzen 5 2400G shows well in the multi-core compression workload as well. Meanwhile, the Core i3-7100 and AMD A10-9700 demonstrate just how under-powered they are in demanding tests.</p><p>The Ryzen 5 2400G performs exceedingly well in LAME, which is primarily single-threaded. This result leads us to believe that the benchmark benefits from low cache latency, as Intel processors maintain their per-core performance advantage.</p><p>There's normally a larger delta between Intel and AMD processors during our HandBrake x265 test compared to the x264 benchmark due to the former's heavy use of AVX instructions. But we don't really see that this time around. The Ryzen 5 2400G is much more competitive in AVX-heavy workloads than we expected.</p><p>Speaking of AVX, we also provide results from y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes Pi using AVX instructions. We tested with version 0.7.3.9474, which includes Ryzen optimizations. The Intel processors take a big lead in our single-threaded run. Again, though, the delta between Intel and AMD contenders is smaller than expected when we divide this task across available physical and logical cores. We theorize that a lower cache latency helps feed the cores in these data-hungry AVX workloads, thus speeding performance.</p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="final-thoughts">Final Thoughts </h2><p>Our mission today was to determine if AMD's Ryzen 5 2400G could truly play games at 1920x1080 using low-quality settings. The answer is yes, though your mileage may vary depending on the title. Vega or not, we're still dealing with integrated graphics. So, the fact that this sub-$200 piece of highly integrated hardware gets us there at all is impressive. Raven Ridge-based processors aren't going to make you swear off add-in cards any time soon. But they do serve up playable frame rates, satisfying their mission in life. </p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:2560px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:46.99%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gY8Wmcb6rv7Ze6UA8NWKJN.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gY8Wmcb6rv7Ze6UA8NWKJN.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="2560" height="1203" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gY8Wmcb6rv7Ze6UA8NWKJN.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>In comparison, the locked multipliers you find on Intel's low-cost CPUs hurt their value proposition among budget-minded enthusiasts. The company did make a half-hearted attempt to court power users with an unlocked K-series Core i3, but the thing is too expensive, no way around it. Moreover, it requires a Z-series chipset for overclocking and doesn't even include a heat sink. Hard pass.</p><p>Meanwhile, every AMD CPU is overclockable on B350 and X370 motherboards. Specifically, our Ryzen 5 2400G sample overclocked easily. With some extra time, we think we could have squeezed even more performance from it. That's particularly important because AMD needs the helping hands of enthusiasts to beat Intel in benchmarks it'd otherwise lose at stock settings.</p><p>AMD made some significant changes to Raven Ridge's architecture compared to the Zeppelin die. It reduced L3 cache capacity and latency, moved to a single-CCX layout, and bumped clock rates higher thanks to a refined 14nm+ manufacturing process. The result is a more competitive entry-level processor than anything we've seen from AMD before in our CPU-focused application workloads. Ryzen 5 2400G's ability to work on eight threads concurrently help it battle effectively, whether you're looking at highly parallelized workloads or simpler tasks like LAME encoding.</p><p>But the addition of AMD's Vega-based graphics engine is what everyone was holding their breath for. That combination of new Zen cores with modern 3D capabilities played well together throughout our benchmark suite at 1280x720. It also earned approving nods in most of the 1080p-based tests. The previous-generation A10-9700 and Intel's current UHD Graphics solution simply get slaughtered when they show up in the same charts.</p><p>We're impressed with Ryzen 5 2400G's overall performance story, especially in light of the chip's $170 price tag. It's a solid value paired with an inexpensive motherboard and a fast memory kit. As with APUs of the past, this processor gives you the ability to buy one chip without the expense of an add-in card. You can imagine the integration does some interesting things for builders and small form factors, too. Ryzen 5 2400G would be great in a mini-ITX box next to your TV.</p><p>AMD’s value pitch has long consisted of more cores for less money, and Raven Ridge brings that same philosophy to integrated graphics. The Ryzen 5 2400G is a surprisingly good processor for those looking for a capable gaming build on the lower end of today's pricing scale.</p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ MSI G25 Vortex 8RD Gaming PC Review ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/msi-g25-vortex-8rd-gaming-pc,5361.html</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ MSI's G25 Vortex 8RD is a small form factor gaming PC intended for the living room. We pit it against a couple of our own builds to see how capable it is. ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">ESAox7wwFoR94rQ5jxGbQc</guid>
                                                                                                <enclosure url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Fmtio4GaJp6JF9hTzKsxAm-1280-80.jpg" type="image/jpeg" length="0"></enclosure>
                                                                        <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                <updated>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:29:45 +0000</updated>
                                                                                                                                            <category><![CDATA[Gaming PCs]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[Desktops]]></category>
                                                                                                                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ Derek Forrest ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                                        <dc:description><![CDATA[ &lt;p&gt;Derek Forrest was a contributing freelance writer for Tom&#039;s Hardware who specialized in writing about hardware news and reviewing gaming desktops and laptops. He is a lifelong PC enthusiast, former IT administrator, and custom PC builder.&lt;/p&gt; ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <media:content type="image/jpeg" url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Fmtio4GaJp6JF9hTzKsxAm-1280-80.jpg">
                                                            <media:credit><![CDATA[null]]></media:credit>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    </media:content>
                                                    <media:thumbnail url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Fmtio4GaJp6JF9hTzKsxAm-1280-80.jpg" />
                                                                                                                                                                    <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <h2 id="introduction-amp-product-tour">Introduction & Product Tour</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:4496px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:66.73%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Fmtio4GaJp6JF9hTzKsxAm.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Fmtio4GaJp6JF9hTzKsxAm.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="4496" height="3000" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Fmtio4GaJp6JF9hTzKsxAm.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>MSI debuted its new G25 Vortex small form factor (SFF) gaming PC at <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/msi-vortex-g25-gaming-desktop,35558.html">the end of September 2017</a>, shortly after the arrival of Intel’s 8th-generation Coffee Lake processors. The new desktop defies a few notions about this particular product category. The G25 Vortex is a console-size PC measuring only 2.5L in volume but with some impressive hardware under the hood. Can MSI's $1,499 offering deliver on its promise of being a VR-ready PC-gaming system in the body of a gaming console?</p><h2 id="specifications-2">Specifications</h2><h2 id="exterior">Exterior</h2><p>The MSI G25 Vortex 8RD resembles a laptop (sans display) more than it conjures a desktop. The chassis measures a mere 10.98 x 13.03 x 1.69 inches (roughly 2.5L volume) and weighs only 5.51lbs. The device can be positioned horizontally like a traditional console or vertically with a provided stand. (It fits in the stand only one way, with the vents pointed upward.) Either way, the G25 Vortex won’t take up a lot of space in your living-room entertainment center, which is an ideal target location.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/znQPf8FT4vXQnS4uMcG9fN.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MUaZRXGkeXZJBbbcQ9kN66.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cPDikeLySxSTprxbAjongB.jpg" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Laying the G25 Vortex flat makes it resemble a sleek gaming console, with smooth black plastic and eye-catching RGB LED bars on the top panel, the panel’s front edge, and the power button. The bottom is less polished, with multiple air vents illuminated by static red LED lights and rubber feet meant to hold it in place. The most aesthetically pleasing part of the bottom panel (aside from the lighting) is an etched MSI dragon logo, which is also where the device’s VESA mounting bracket is located. Setting the G25 Vortex upright (with the included stand) makes the vents less restricted from airflow, with the underside becoming fully exposed and the exhaust vents (on the left side, horizontally) located at the top of the chassis.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yCFx4KNd25UpYwa34rX6aj.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5BnNHAUJiTJQ2GHvLa2g68.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tkQTaPnYdnCPP8b9joh8VB.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Yu4GsF27mN6ab4sp7s36RB.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/qaEiR4bDQ7AqiAmomE6i2L.jpg" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The front of the G25 Vortex features a USB 3.0 Type-C port and two USB 3.0 ports, in addition to audio jacks and an HDMI 2.0 port to connect your virtual reality (VR) head-mounted display (HMD). Unlike many SFF cases with a front-panel HDMI port, this is not a pass-through, and there is no extra wire required in the rear of the device to make the port work.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PZbWzMqkfB7QVmsuXKmDQd.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nUefhgFfvvAga3iQx4WmNh.jpg" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The back of the device sports two more USB 3.0 ports, another HDMI 2.0 interface, and a USB 3.1 (Gen 1) Type-C port. A gigabit Ethernet port (powered by a Qualcomm AR8171 NIC) or the onboard Intel WirelessAC 3168 will get you online, and Bluetooth 4.2 connectivity can free up some USB ports if you're using wireless peripherals. With limited USB connectivity (only four Type-A ports), some Type-C to Type-A adapters may be required for those who want to connect more than just a VR HMD and a wired keyboard and mouse.</p><h2 id="interior">Interior</h2><p>We found it incredibly easy to access the primary components inside the G25 Vortex, despite its compact size. Four thumbscrews are located in the corners of the "bottom" (the left side, looked at vertically) of the chassis; all we had to do was loosen them and pull the top and bottom panels away from the center to gain access to the parts under the hood.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PchuSLLPZ34SRefdgH5FdU.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/pCRHXGf4GFXeqSZrZvSSCJ.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RGW2qnrnP7pCeufTnws3qi.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QQdEk6QwE2PbTpof8ziaGk.jpg" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>MSI loaded the G25 Vortex 8RD with an Intel Core i5-8400 six-core processor, which is seated in a custom MSI Z370 motherboard and cooled with the company’s patented Silent Storm Cooling Pro 3. This consists of a series of copper heat pipes (four for the CPU, three over the GPU, and one for its VRMs) that run into a set of dissipation fins. These are cooled by two fans that pull in air from the bottom (left, when upright) of the chassis and exhaust the heat out the left side (top, when upright). The cooling resembles that of a laptop more than a desktop, but we don’t see much risk of thermal throttling; the interior of the chassis is spacious and has plenty of airflow.</p><p>The GeForce GTX 1060 6GB graphics card is an MXM module, surprisingly. Many SFF OEMs opt for chip-down (soldered) solutions, but MSI has higher-priced models of the G25 Vortex available with more powerful graphics, and the use of MXM likely makes the manufacturing process easier. It also makes it so that end users can upgrade the graphics down the line (after the factory warranty is expired; accessing the GPU will void it), so long as they can keep the new GPU in the same power envelope (150W). However, the downside is that MXM cards usually add a hefty premium to the total bill (at least more than a chip-down setup) due to the increased production cost for the OEM.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ygb5RPr8ir53dsWeHpAXiY.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ysWZJ5wEyPD9vYmhHPmnf.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8Rx2usQ5EJH9bZsi7YJbVd.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BBzUiSke43633t2n4TJ8DY.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/AHwMXNoLHbkTCfbMjaEvte.jpg" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The G25 Vortex 8RD is equipped with 16GB of DDR4-2400 with a CAS latency of 17-17-17-39, but it comes in the form of a single SO-DIMM module, cutting out dual-channel operation and likely hamstringing the memory subsystem on bandwidth-intensive workloads. However, users will find it easy enough to access the memory DIMM slots (there are four of them, two on each side of the device) and upgrade the RAM configuration to something more suitable, if they so desire. Average consumers won’t notice the lack of dual-channel memory, but an enthusiast eye knows that two modules are always better than one, and it’s somewhat disappointing to see MSI intentionally nerf a perfectly good Z370 platform with single-channel memory operation.</p><p>The storage is accessible behind the smooth side panel (top horizontally, right side vertically), which hides two of the four SO-DIMM memory slots in addition to two M.2 interfaces and a 2.5” 1TB 7,200RPM HDD. One of the M.2 slots is occupied with a 256GB Samsung PM871a M.2 SATA 6GB/s SSD. This client model ships to OEMs and is rated for up to 540MB/s and 520MB/s sequential read/write speeds, as well as up to 97K and 79K random read/write IOPS, respectively. If you crave more storage speed, the M.2 slots also support PCIe 3.0 x 4 SSDs that you can purchase and install yourself.</p><h2 id="software-and-accessories">Software And Accessories</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tmMipNnzwwnhBno9GgMDkP.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/AKcKn4L5Yhiba7voHXgz4L.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PHVq3tZvAAtd4niAt5f7Uh.jpg" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UKBWkk3FSJH5egrUHWLgyf.jpg" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>MSI didn’t pre-install any trial version software (bloatware), but the G25 Vortex does come loaded with Nahmic audio software and the company’s custom overclocking and monitoring software, Dragon Center. The app gives users the ability to monitor CPU and GPU usage and temperatures, in addition to one-click overclocking and fan speed settings. The CPU is not overclockable, but you can boost the GPU core and memory clocks if you don’t mind increased fan noise from higher temperatures.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-pc-builds,4390.html">Best PC Builds</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/how-to-build-a-pc,5867.html">How To Build A PC</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/builds">All PC Builds Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="synthetic-amp-productivity-benchmarks">Synthetic & Productivity Benchmarks</h2><p>MSI’s G25 Vortex 8RD is one of the first systems we’ve tested that features Intel Coffee Lake processors, so our comparison factors are mostly comprised of previous-generation systems. We happened to have an Intel H270 platform with a Core i5-7500 (the Core i5-8400’s predecessor) on hand, so we set it up and collected data to pit against MSI’s next-gen contender.</p><p>Our Z270 test bench features an Intel Core i7-7700K cooled by a Deepcool Gammaxx 400 on an ASRock Z270 Gaming i7 motherboard, with 16GB of Kingston HyperX Savage DDR4-2133 memory, a 1TB HyperX Savage SATA 6 Gb/s SSD, and a 1000W EVGA Supernova G3 power supply.</p><p>The H270 test platform sports a Core i5-7500 on an ASRock H270 Performance motherboard. We used the same memory from our Z270 platform, and Kingston shipped us a 512GB Savage SATA 6 Gb/s SSD to use in the reference bench. EVGA also hooked us up with a 650W version of the Supernova G3 power supply for the new test rig. Zotac provided us with a stock-clocked GTX 1060 6GB graphics card, and we used it in both the Z270 and H270 rigs. The full specifications of our comparison systems are listed below.</p><h2 id="test-system-configurations">Test System Configurations</h2><p><strong>Z270 TEST BED</strong></p><p><strong>H270 TEST BED</strong></p><p>We tested the MSI G25 Vortex using the presets in its Dragon Center software, with the performance mode set to Sport and the fan curve on Auto (this was how it was originally shipped). Our Z270 and H270 tests systems were both tested with stock CPU and GPU clock speeds and operation, with memory set to DDR4-2133 and a CAS latency of 15-15-15-35.</p><p>We also made some changes to our Productivity test suite, adding VRMark and PCMark 10 Extended to our usual list of benchmarks.</p><h2 id="3dmark-2">3DMark</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Tj97GBHemz7yvmbjkPoQwa.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WiidPcZHNaAxJMpfLuDWs8.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HaUu9mzyarLMyfsTgcUYfN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kU3hdtYwgerdz5YZTFVW36.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The MSI G25 Vortex doesn’t fare too well against its similarly-equipped desktop brethren, netting lower overall, Graphics, and Combined scores across the gamut of 3DMark Fire Strike and Time Spy tests. The main cause of this is the mobile GTX 1060 under the hood; it performs—as we'd expect—slightly behind a desktop version of the graphics card (at stock frequencies). However, the Vortex takes the second place with its Physics and CPU scores throughout the entirety of the tests, with the Core i5-8400 performing better than our Core i5-7500-equipped test rig and just behind the quad-core (8-thread) Core i7-7700K in our Z270 reference machine.</p><h2 id="cinebench-r15">Cinebench R15</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:993px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.72%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cm4YmrbRGtkasZkUMbDLva.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cm4YmrbRGtkasZkUMbDLva.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="993" height="742" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cm4YmrbRGtkasZkUMbDLva.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>With the CPU in the spotlight, the MSI G25 Vortex 8RD takes a more favorable position in the stack, besting our H270 machine (with the previous-gen i5-7500 inside) and falling slightly behind the previous Intel flagship CPU (the i7-7700K). Single-threaded tests put the Vortex only slightly ahead of our H270 rig, but the Core i5-8400 shines with multi-threaded workloads, putting the Vortex within arm's reach of our Z270 (i7-7700K) test bench.</p><h2 id="compubench">CompuBench</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1027px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:72.15%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PbVimZodhBAqFDwbPgvGkJ.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PbVimZodhBAqFDwbPgvGkJ.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1027" height="741" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PbVimZodhBAqFDwbPgvGkJ.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The MSI G25 Vortex returns to the bottom of the pile in the Compubench test results. Although the Vortex manages to (barely) outpace the H270 test rig in the Video Processing test, its weaker mobile GPU loses a little over 20 MHash/s compared to the desktop counterpart inside the H270 machine.</p><h2 id="storage-test">Storage Test</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/dhnYJgKab4GGe4Qvo34GVN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SSLGA7ULFw4mfB8UHVZRP5.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>MSI’s use of an M.2 SSD with a SATA controller may seem to be an odd choice, the 256GB Samsung PM871a SATA 6 Gb/s SSD inside the Vortex performs well, achieving just under its rated sequential read speed (of 540 MB/s) at 539.14 MB/s. However, the sequential read and random read and write IOPS performance falls short of the advertised speeds for the drive. Despite this, the SSD performs admirably (it even bests our reference SATA storage in write IOPS), and average consumers will appreciate the speedy primary storage.</p><p>Our reference rigs both feature the same brand of SSD, although in different capacities. However, while testing the new H270 machine (with a 512GB HyperX Savage SSD), our storage test results only varied from our Z270 test bench (with a 1TB HyperX Savage SSD) by less than 1%. Because of this, we simply used our data from the Z270 test rig to represent both reference platforms, since the storage is virtually identical in performance, despite the difference in capacity.</p><h2 id="sandra-memory-bandwidth">Sandra Memory Bandwidth</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TNdDotUGTkQSwVrAQU74Ak.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2pSSaLYNpZPLSeNjBpmvti.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Predictably, the MSI Vortex falls behind the dual-channel desktop PCs in the field during the Sandra memory bandwidth test. This is due to the Vortex’s single 16GB module of DDR4-2400 SO-DIMM memory, which sports a high CAS latency of 17-17-17-39 (which also doesn’t help its bandwidth performance). Because of this, the MSI G25 Vortex will lag behind systems with dual-channel memory operation in workloads that are bandwidth intensive.</p><h2 id="pcmark-8">PCMark 8</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:989px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.92%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/B9cUSPrM7K6QYq47ayJVLF.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/B9cUSPrM7K6QYq47ayJVLF.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="989" height="741" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/B9cUSPrM7K6QYq47ayJVLF.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The Vortex’s speedy storage and processor give it an edge over our H270 reference rig in the PCMark 8 application tests. The Vortex also trails the Z270 platform by a small margin in the Microsoft Office application benchmark, but its Core i5-8400 can’t compete with the higher thread count and clock speeds of our Z270 rig’s i7-7700K in the Adobe Creative application tests.</p><h2 id="pcmark-10-extended">PCMark 10 Extended</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:989px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.92%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Qw59Txt2GHUCxgiw4bRe9M.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Qw59Txt2GHUCxgiw4bRe9M.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="989" height="741" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Qw59Txt2GHUCxgiw4bRe9M.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>We added the PCMark 10 Extended benchmark to our suite to get a better idea of specific productivity performance across a broad range of application types. The MSI G25 Vortex takes its familiar second-place position over our H270 rig and just behind our Z270 platform, but the Vortex still finishes last in the gaming portion of the test, which uses a version of 3DMark Fire Strike to test the system’s gaming acumen.</p><h2 id="vrmark">VRMark</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:989px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.92%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3ujcikwAVGj6PSeaxRNSV8.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3ujcikwAVGj6PSeaxRNSV8.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="989" height="741" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3ujcikwAVGj6PSeaxRNSV8.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>VRMark tells a similar story: the MSI G25 Vortex falls behind the desktop GPU-equipped competition, despite the differences in CPU horsepower. However, the Orange Room test shows that the Vortex exceeds the minimum recommended performance for the Oculus Rift, but pushing the details higher with the Blue Room test brings all three of the systems in the field to their knees.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-pc-builds,4390.html">Best PC Builds</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/how-to-build-a-pc,5867.html">How To Build A PC</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/builds">All PC Builds Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="gaming-benchmarks">Gaming Benchmarks</h2><p>Similar to our productivity tests, we made some changes to our game test suite by removing some older titles and adding some brand-spanking-new ones. We stopped using <em>Alien: Isolation</em>, <em>GRID Autosport</em>, <em>Metro: Last Light Redux</em>, and <em>Thief</em>, and in their places we added <em>Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</em> (to replace the previous <em>Ashes</em> benchmark) and <em>Middle Earth: Shadows of War</em>. As usual, we tested all games with the maximum settings, which for <em>Ashes: Escalation</em> is the DX12 Crazy Preset with MSAA x8. For <em>Shadows of War</em>, we didn’t pre-load the MIPS and disabled Dynamic Resolution and set the game to Ultra with FXAA only.</p><p>For this particular review, we also excluded 2560 x 1440 resolution test results. This is partially because the mobile GPU would not run that resolution at full screen (although we could have run the tests with windowed resolutions), but also because these types of devices are typically meant for the living room, where 1080p and 4K TVs rule the roost. (Note: you will see that a GTX 1060 GPU, in either mobile or desktop form, is not exactly adequate for 4K gaming, especially at these high settings.)</p><h2 id="ashes-of-the-singularity-escalation-7">Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:989px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:75.03%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uQCMph7qAwW8m45S2f5UDb.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uQCMph7qAwW8m45S2f5UDb.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="989" height="742" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uQCMph7qAwW8m45S2f5UDb.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The MSI Vortex’s mobile GPU is going to be a thorn in its side throughout our gaming benchmarks when compared to a system with a desktop graphics card, and it starts testing off with the expected ~10% performance gap from the next closest reference system with a stock-clocked desktop GPU. Although there is only difference of roughly 5 FPS between our Z270 reference rig and the Vortex, the <em>Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation </em>results show that a GTX 1060 isn’t going to bode well at Ultra settings with demanding modern AAA games. Scaling back the detail levels and anti-aliasing will vastly improve your frame rates in a game such as this.</p><h2 id="bioshock-infinite">Bioshock Infinite</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3nD6Z3iW8ALqCsKxktbCC8.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KoL8YyxbF2JeeNaaL2ZUtA.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The MSI G25 Vortex 8RD provides excellent frame rates at 1920 x 1080 in <em>Bioshock Infinite</em>, netting an average of 113.05 FPS. This is still behind our reference systems with a desktop GPU, but this game isn’t particularly taxing until you crank up the resolution. However, even at 4K, the Vortex puts out an average of 37.28 FPS, which is playable (and easily improved without turning down too many settings).</p><h2 id="dirt-rally">DiRT Rally</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Nv7henDTYmVyTNoAfEKpRQ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ozuQCRqdX9kQvouYNt7V25.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The MSI G25 Vortex 8RD once again trails the desktop GPU-equipped comparison systems. At 1920 x 1080, the Vortex falls behind our H270 reference rig by 1.24 FPS. Cranking the resolution up to 3840 x 2160 makes the margin even slimmer, with only a 0.62 average FPS difference between the Vortex and the Core i5-7500-equipped H270 test system. You won’t be able to get playable frame rates at 4K without some significant reductions to the detail and AA settings, but all of the GTX 1060-equipped systems are able to provide close to a 60 FPS average with the maximum detail settings at 1080p.</p><h2 id="grand-theft-auto-v-8">Grand Theft Auto V</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kkzMVWPaiQJTQJJPb6mzfC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yPiYgoCNLbdtLh6djgvS6G.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>GTA V</em> gives the MSI G25 Vortex 8RD its only second-place finish in the game benchmarks at 3840 x 2160, where the six-core i5-8400 gives it a slight edge over the previous-gen i5-7500 in our H270 reference machine. However, at 1920 x 1080, the Vortex remains at the bottom of the chart, behind the H270 test rig by 3.45 FPS average.</p><h2 id="hitman-7">Hitman</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NntxaYn523p6QgcR98AwnU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/W32Kp9LEpCsTRuMJnjWADW.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The MSI G25 Vortex 8RD nets impressive average frame rates in the <em>Hitman</em> benchmarks at 1920 x 1080, but it still remains behind the desktop GPU-equipped comparison systems. At 4K, the reference PCs are able to almost achieve a playable 30 FPS at the most punishing settings, but the Vortex falls painfully short of the 30 FPS mark with its mobile GPU by 3.57 FPS. However, reducing the detail and AA settings will get you playable frame rates at 3840 x 2160.</p><h2 id="rise-of-the-tomb-raider">Rise of the Tomb Raider</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:990px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.95%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/b5Wb87yf5tB3YVBAGUF7AH.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/b5Wb87yf5tB3YVBAGUF7AH.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="990" height="742" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/b5Wb87yf5tB3YVBAGUF7AH.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p><em>Rise of the Tomb Raider</em> is one of the most punishing games in our test suite, and the Vortex puts out an average frame rate of 34.72 FPS at 1920 x 1080 with all the bells and whistles turned on. Reducing the AA will drastically improve performance, but gaming at 3840 x 2160 will be a tough task without reducing the texture details to their minimums. At max settings, none of the GTX 1060-equipped systems is able to reach double-digit average frame rates.</p><h2 id="the-division">The Division</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:990px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:75.05%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/K3YbwJU8927rBxjFmfSwWg.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/K3YbwJU8927rBxjFmfSwWg.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="990" height="743" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/K3YbwJU8927rBxjFmfSwWg.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p><em>The Division</em> is another hardware-intensive game with all the eye candy at maximum, and the Vortex again finds the bottom of the pile with an average frame rate of 50.7 FPS at 1920 x 1080. Dialing up the resolution to 3840 x 2160 again proves to be a tough order; not a single system in the field reaches beyond 20 FPS. Reducing settings will help, but it’s starting to become apparent that the G25 Vortex 8RD is more limited to 1080p TVs/displays, at least at maxed-out settings.</p><h2 id="middle-earth-shadows-of-war">Middle Earth: Shadows of War</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:990px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.95%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TDsUujXzWb2xU7YqoLVKCo.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TDsUujXzWb2xU7YqoLVKCo.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="990" height="742" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TDsUujXzWb2xU7YqoLVKCo.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The newest game in our test suite is extremely GPU-focused using its Ultra preset, evidenced by the identical average frame rates of our Z270 and H270 test systems. (We used the same GPU in each platform.) As such, the MSI G25 Vortex 8RD trails the desktop GPU-equipped systems at a reasonably expected margin (9-11%) at 1920 x 1080 and 3840 x 2160. Once again, the Vortex demonstrates enthusiast-level frame rates at 1080p, but it fails to impress at 4K with the detail settings at max. You'll have to upgrade the graphics card for that.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-pc-builds,4390.html">Best PC Builds</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/how-to-build-a-pc,5867.html">How To Build A PC</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/builds">All PC Builds Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="price-analysis-amp-conclusion">Price Analysis & Conclusion</h2><p>The MSI G25 Vortex 8RD is a Core i5-8400 and GTX 1060-equipped, console-size gaming PC that was designed specifically for the living room. The hardware under the hood is VR-ready, and it’s easy to connect an HMD with the front HDMI port. There’s no abundance of USB connectivity (you get only four Type-A ports), and if an Oculus Rift with Touch (which requires three USB Type-A ports at minimum) is to be paired with the Vortex, you’ll have to either settle for one Type-A port or some Type-C to Type-A adapters to connect your peripherals, or use a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:4496px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:66.73%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Ag4PvyDBwLkorcG2TjWNT7.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Ag4PvyDBwLkorcG2TjWNT7.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="4496" height="3000" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Ag4PvyDBwLkorcG2TjWNT7.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The look of the Vortex screams “gamer,” with RGB LED bars on the center and front edge of the smooth panel and in the power button, in addition to red LEDs illuminating the air vents on the bottom side (or left, vertically). The edgy design is subjective, but we think it’s fair to say that consumers in the 11-24 demographic will find it aesthetically pleasing.</p><p>The G25 Vortex is easy to upgrade, and it’s a good thing. The memory and storage that ship with the Vortex 8RD are mere starting points for enthusiast gamers. MSI disappointed us with the use of single-channel memory (a dual-channel kit would have provided better bandwidth performance), and although 16GB of RAM is more than enough for the latest AAA game titles, the speed and CAS latency are less than fantastic. The SATA 6 Gb/s M.2 SSD provides fast load times, but the capacity is somewhat minimal at 256GB. The 1TB HDD is also minimalist, and anyone with an extensive AAA game library would outgrow the device’s storage space fairly quickly. However, the storage is a good starting point for a new PC gamer (especially compared to the storage of a gaming console), and that’s the target customer MSI is clearly looking for with the G25 Vortex.</p><p>The use of an MXM GPU also gives the G25 Vortex a degree of longevity over other OEM SFF gaming PCs that use chip-down graphics; the end user could hypothetically upgrade the graphics card down the line (say, when Nvidia releases mobile Volta-based GPUs) if more performance is needed.</p><p>We knew that the MSI G25 Vortex 8RD would be a tough sell in a performance battle against DIY systems equipped with GTX 1060 6GB desktop graphics cards. Nvidia said we’d see about a 10% performance variance from the desktop version compared to the mobile GPUs when the <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-10-series-pascal-mobile-gpus,32471.html">mobile 10-series launched</a>, and that’s roughly what we see from the Vortex across the range of gaming benchmarks in our suite. It doesn’t quite live up to the expectations of a 4K gaming machine, but no GTX 1060-equipped PC really is. However, if your living room sports a 1080p display, the G25 Vortex 8RD will provide excellent frame rates at High and Ultra settings in most modern AAA game titles.</p><p>The Vortex also excels in multi-threaded workloads against our Core i5-7500-equipped H270 reference system, thanks to its 8th-generation Core i5-8400 six-core processor. The higher core count improves performance in most of the productivity benchmarks, with the Vortex placing below our i7-7700K-equipped Z270 test rig and above the H270 system in CPU-intensive workloads.</p><p>At $1,499, the MSI G25 Vortex 8RD is not a value play for the hardware inside. (You could configure a comparable DIY system with a similar form factor for around $1,200 or less, with an OS included.) But the markup isn’t as considerable as some other custom-shop SFF options we’ve seen. For uninitiated consumers, we can see the Vortex as a viable option if they are seeking a powerful, console-size VR-ready gaming machine for their living room entertainment center.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-pc-builds,4390.html">Best PC Builds</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/how-to-build-a-pc,5867.html">How To Build A PC</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/builds">All PC Builds Content</a></strong></p>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ Intel Core i3-8100 CPU Review ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i3-8100-cpu-review,5385.html</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ Intel's Core i3-8100 comes with four cores at a low price point. But can it fend off AMD's multiplier-unlocked Ryzen competition? ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">UDYTW4sc2Pe7rDN3cBhk7n</guid>
                                                                                                <enclosure url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4sPVUZo6iybivzkumYbE6j-1280-80.jpg" type="image/jpeg" length="0"></enclosure>
                                                                        <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                <updated>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:29:27 +0000</updated>
                                                                                                                                            <category><![CDATA[CPUs]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[PC Components]]></category>
                                                                                                <author><![CDATA[ palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) ]]></author>                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ Paul Alcorn ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                    <dc:source><![CDATA[ https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RZRmFeQfPy3etHjBQitbGW.jpeg ]]></dc:source>
                                                                <dc:description><![CDATA[ &lt;p&gt;As a teenager, Paul scraped up enough money to buy a 486-powered PC with a turbo button (yes, a turbo button). Back when floppies were still popular he was already chasing after the fastest spinners for his personal computer, which led him down the long and winding storage road, covering enterprise storage. His current focus is on consumer processors, though he still keeps a close eye on the latest storage news. In his spare time, you’ll find Paul hanging out with his kids or indulging his love of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.&lt;/p&gt; ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <media:content type="image/jpeg" url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4sPVUZo6iybivzkumYbE6j-1280-80.jpg">
                                                            <media:credit><![CDATA[Tom&#039;s Hardware]]></media:credit>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    <media:description><![CDATA[Intel Core i3-8100]]></media:description>                                                            <media:text><![CDATA[Intel Core i3-8100]]></media:text>
                                <media:title type="plain"><![CDATA[Intel Core i3-8100]]></media:title>
                                                    </media:content>
                                                    <media:thumbnail url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4sPVUZo6iybivzkumYbE6j-1280-80.jpg" />
                                                                                                                                                                    <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <h2 id="meet-intel-39-s-core-i3-8100">Meet Intel's Core i3-8100</h2><p>Intel&apos;s Coffee Lake architecture represents the company&apos;s biggest generational improvement in more than a decade. Specifically, though, its Core i3 models benefit most. In the past, Core i3 chips wielded two Hyper-Threaded cores. But Coffee Lake-based i3s sport four physical cores. On paper, that makes them roughly equivalent to Kaby Lake-based Core i5s at lower prices.</p><p>The improvement was badly needed. AMD&apos;s Ryzen 3 1300X and 1200 offered unlocked ratio multipliers and twice as many cores as previous-gen Core i3s, <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3-1300x-cpu,5149.html">earning our unabashed praise</a>. Intel tries leveling the playing field with Coffee Lake. In response, AMD slashed prices on its Ryzen 5 and 7 CPUs.</p><p>Part of our list of <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-performance-cpus,5683.html">best CPUs for desktop applications</a> at press time, the Core i3-8100 competes at a price point where AMD might not be able to get much more aggressive. All Ryzen processors utilize the same eight-core die, so there is a fixed manufacturing cost, even for the four-core Ryzen 3 models.</p><p>Although Intel only sells two Coffee Lake-based Cores i3s for now, there&apos;s a $60 chasm between the Core i3-8100 and <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i3-8350k-cpu,5304.html">unlocked Core i3-8350K</a>. And that K-series chip isn&apos;t a typical Core i3. It doesn&apos;t come with a bundled cooler, it requires a pricey Z-series motherboard for overclocking, and it only costs a few dollars less than the six-core Core i5-8400. Naturally, we recommend stepping up to the higher-performance CPU.</p><p>Core i3-8100, on the other hand, fits neatly into the familiar mainstream pricing structure and is a good complement for the B-series motherboards due to arrive early this year. Selling for $121 online, it&apos;s Intel&apos;s only real competition against Ryzen 3 1300X and 1200.</p><h2 id="the-core-i3-8100">The Core i3-8100</h2><p>Intel's entire Coffee Lake line-up operates at lower base frequencies than its Kaby Lake chips due to the prevalence of extra cores. For the Core i7/i5 families, Intel offsets those conservative clock rates with higher Turbo Boost bins. But Core i3-8100 doesn't benefit from Turbo Boost. That means you get a static frequency, regardless of how many cores are active. So, the -8100's 3.6 GHz ceiling could yield lower performance in lightly-threaded workloads compared to the 3.9 GHz Core i3-7100.</p><p>Of course, four physical cores should also translate to a big speed-up in heavily-threaded tasks favoring Core i3-8100. Extra cores naturally use more power, so Core i3-8100 carries a 65W TDP versus Core i3-7100's 51W rating.</p><p>The i3's cores come with 1.5MB of cache each, adding up to 6MB of L3 across the die. Core i3-8350K boasts 2MB of L3 cache per core, for a total of 8MB. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 3 models sport 8MB of L3 cache as well. As we've seen, though, in real-world applications, cache latency and throughput can drag down the advantage of higher capacity. Our benchmarks will sort out the winners. </p><p>Coffee Lake-based Core i3s support the same DDR4-2400 transfer rate as Kaby Lake models, while Core i5s and i7s now accommodate up to DDR4-2666. The Core i3-8100 includes UHD Graphics 630 on-die, which is essentially the same as Kaby Lake's integrated graphics engine. This gives Intel an advantage over AMD's Ryzen processors if you aren't planning on using a discrete GPU.</p><p>Intel lists the Core i3-8100 at $117, which matches the Kaby Lake-based Core i3-7100. Coffee Lake pricing has improved alongside availability, and we're now seeing this chip online for ~$121. It naturally does battle, then, with AMD's $130 Ryzen 3 1300X and $110 Ryzen 3 1200. Let's see how they stack up.</p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cheap-cpus,5668.html">Best Cheap CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="test-notes">Test Notes</h2><p>MSI motherboards, like many others, feature a default Enhanced Turbo setting that allows the processor to run at its maximum Turbo Boost bin across all cores at all times. For all practical purposes, this is the same as overclocking. The setting only applies to K-series processors, though, so it isn't a factor in our Core i3-8100 testing.</p><p>We paired our sample with a Z370-based motherboard, which does support faster memory. Sticking with Intel's official specification, we used DDR4-2666 modules  at 2400 MT/s to represent the data rates you'll have access to once B- and H-series motherboards surface.</p><h2 id="msi-z370-gaming-pro-carbon-ac">MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC</h2><p>MSI continues its Z-series Gaming Pro motherboards, giving the latest implementation similar features as previous models. The exact board details and specifications can be found on the <a href="https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/Z370-GAMING-PRO-CARBON-AC">manufacturer's website</a>.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:916px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:70.85%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sn4DwyvW2g9Eta2A8WNsMR.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sn4DwyvW2g9Eta2A8WNsMR.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="916" height="649" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sn4DwyvW2g9Eta2A8WNsMR.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><h2 id="comparison-processors">Comparison Processors</h2>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="40766fdc-ce3c-4b6b-9988-45d34dafc048">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Desktop-Processor-Stealth-YD1200BBAEBOX/dp/B0741DN383?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware-deal&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Ryzen 5 2400G" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:74.96%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/bYJFigvFFDUjVnv8jSUk5T.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 3 1200</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="3a71c4e7-ba23-42c1-a71d-139aae3b13df">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Desktop-Processor-Stealth-YD130XBBAEBOX/dp/B0741DLVL7/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Ryzen 3 1300X" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:74.96%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/a2fUAMCzfcx7bPMQJvSgC3.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 3 1300X</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="45ea4ba4-d3a8-483f-95ca-4ef8d555c34b">            <a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117734" data-model-name="Core i3-7100" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:112.69%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/X32eA2LHwQpC7LpTrvgkEQ.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">Intel Core i3-7100</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div><h2 id="test-systems-7">Test Systems</h2><div ><table><thead><tr><th  colspan="2"><strong>Test System & Configuration</strong></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Hardware</strong></td><td  ><strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z370)</strong>Intel Core i3-8100, i3-8350K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2400, 2666, 2933, and 3200<strong>AMD Socket AM4 </strong>AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1400, Ryzen 3 1300X, Ryzen 3 1200MSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 <strong><span>Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)</span></strong>Intel Core i3-7350K, i3-7100, i5-7400 MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 <strong>All</strong> EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703Corsair H115i</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cheap-cpus,5668.html">Best Cheap CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="vrmark-amp-3dmark-6">VRMark & 3DMark</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZYT5DedhS8FR3zLPSaPbZH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/maNscgN9GKCgTYppviyS9D.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GWMvYWoZ7Xum8RBAptCfLN.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Intel architectures tend to perform best in the VRMark tests, and that trend continues with Core i3-8100. The pricier -8350K leverages its higher clock rate to beat Intel's Core i3-8100. Meanwhile, it's noteworthy that the Core i3-7100 lands at the bottom of our chart. This is a trend we'll see continue through several of our tests.</p><p>Core i3-8100 competes readily against AMD's Ryzen 3 1300X and 1200 during the 3DMark physics and CPU tests. The Ryzen 5 1500X and 1400 enjoy a significant advantage from their eight threads. But then again, they're also more expensive.</p><h2 id="ashes-of-the-singularity-escalation-8">Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/JYRw85McMM5KqTkHi7ViRA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4stsM3QSaNZhT7i798dZod.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WxKkLeXdAub7LHPMe3PdUi.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/pUjEfRFjdC5diPbVPpKfJT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/dd5PNYs7tbXLCaRTHi2Wfg.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Ashes of the Singularity</em> is a heavily-threaded game that performs best on CPUs with lots of cores. Even still, Core i3-8100 scores impressively well compared to its quad-threaded competitors. It even outstrips the 4C/8T Ryzen 5 1400 at stock settings.</p><p>Ryzen 3 1200 features a 3.1 GHz base and 3.4 GHz boost frequency, which hampers performance during this CPU-intensive benchmark. Even the dual-core Core i3-7350K is allowed to squeak past. Then again, an overclocked Core i3-8350K surprisingly leads the six-core Core i5-8400, so high clock rates clearly pay off, too.</p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cheap-cpus,5668.html">Best Cheap CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="civilization-vi-ai-test-8">Civilization VI AI Test</h2><h2 id="2"></h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:75.00%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Z4yXTjGCDfuXjRjxm5qMNe.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Z4yXTjGCDfuXjRjxm5qMNe.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="834" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Z4yXTjGCDfuXjRjxm5qMNe.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The <em>Civilization VI</em> AI test measures CPU performance in a turn-based strategy game. An overclocked Core i3-8350K establishes a compelling lead over its locked Coffee Lake counterparts, while the Core i5-8400's Turbo Boost frequencies provide an edge over the -8100's 3.6 GHz ceiling.</p><p>AMD's Ryzen 3 processors are also competitive. The tuned Ryzen 3 1300X, an Editor's Choice award-winner, leads the Core i3-8100. Meanwhile, the overclocked Ryzen 5 models don't fare as well. Then again, those more expensive models feature simultaneous multi-threading, which this test historically punishes.</p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-test-8">Civilization VI Graphics Test</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/V7oiPrFmmmAKDwGWiB6ys.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/aT5bYJunYkZuJqxcXuoboT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/x37qsPutAW3CqDLMqEo4ZS.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/oz7sSyzUvsZBHHVY534Y7e.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/R5ZwfLjJrdSnW9t7jo6g5G.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Even with two extra cores, there are situations where the -8100's locked multiplier is a liability. Both overclocked Ryzen 3 models outperform the Core i3-8100 during this benchmark, while the -8100 fends off those same processors at stock settings by a similar margin.</p><p>There's a huge 24.2 FPS delta between the Ryzen 3 1200's stock 3.1 GHz base frequency and overclocked 3.9 GHz configuration. Overclocking the 1200's memory to 3200 MT/s helps quite a bit.</p><h2 id="warhammer-40-000-dawn-of-war-iii-7">Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HNtDkicVMYrspB79XiMXqU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YGewG3rjfCrE7Ji6H8mDXg.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kzt2EXXDVPSVW3G8Da9Fej.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sQGzWpU2abHHEyHjbv6t9W.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZpVt3poJQzKHURsDFpKzgA.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Warhammer 40,000: DoW III</em>'s benchmark scales well with execution resources, but aggressive clock rates also provide a big benefit.</p><p>The overclocked Core i3-8350K continues to impress, though the fact it requires an overclocking-friendly heat sink and Z370 motherboard hurts the value calculation compared to less expensive Core i3 and Ryzen 3 models.</p><p>Intel's Core i3-8100 takes a comfortable lead over the Ryzen 3 models, even after we overclock them. The -8100 also beats both stock Ryzen 5 CPUs, though AMD's 1500X jumps ahead once we overclock it.</p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cheap-cpus,5668.html">Best Cheap CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="grand-theft-auto-v-9">Grand Theft Auto V</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gByf8oSJrycFUnzvU2LUEQ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PzCRFo78uBjTEJuWiDjUW8.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DeQAYMeXjSYp2QzX5p3JkP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KajVh2pEHqwnxLG6WZPukY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yw7HcX4www2xkmNXNER8UK.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Overclocking has a big impact on the -8350K's performance, allowing it to jump ahead of our test pool. </p><p>The Core i3-8100 averages an impressive 83.3 FPS, which is way ahead of the Core i3-7100's 58.4 FPS. That ~43% generational leap is typically unheard of. But the -8100 still trails Intel's Core i3-8350K at stock settings, which has a much higher base frequency. The Ryzen processors lag Intel's Coffee Lake-based models, even after tuning. </p><h2 id="hitman-2016">Hitman (2016)</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/B6BuqpmSrbigNMpWTP4xvS.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NYPx94gUaZKNNqekaoxh88.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZWuZw2RpxtFaH3Um2uAFSP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/44HAcGa8VQLsqwPC2oKBHP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/fmFx4LdGjapj26FmUpmD2H.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The Core i3-8350K redefines what we expect from a Core i3. Given its higher overall cost, though, this is really more like a Core i5.</p><p>Core i3-8100 yields surprisingly good performance in <em>Hitman</em>, even if it isn't as formidable as the K-series model. The average FPS line chart, which only includes price-equivalent CPUs, highlights two performance tiers: the Kaby Lake and Ryzen processors offer significantly less performance than the Coffee Lake-based chips.</p><p>Intel's Core i3-7100 encounters several frame time outliers during the benchmark, while the -8100's additional cores provide a smoother experience.</p><h2 id="middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor">Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kFCtyus6Q7GXKowHeCLkPM.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HS4Twamg7Uww8zBZ3SV2dX.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/22zCYr6iwg6gPcEcstxEYi.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mMhbGhWyKv3ET4XFUk5qmF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HT5k4wyt2UXHwATY2z2hYV.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>This title is about as single-threaded as it gets, so clock rates and IPC throughput affect frame rates most.</p><p>We expected the Core i3-7100's higher clock rate to provide an advantage over the Core i3-8100 in this benchmark, similar to how a stock -7350K beats the -8350K. Surprisingly, the -8100 leads, albeit by a slim margin, while the Ryzen models coalesce at the bottom of the chart. But it's noteworthy that even the slowest processor averages 124.7 FPS.</p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cheap-cpus,5668.html">Best Cheap CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="project-cars">Project CARS</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/pYerzVbbjGmHQdxu5wi5vb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xCosZicrQrzz3g2nd2EY8P.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Ks7cbEi7pAf7Ni6HWXTArm.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gu8dVzrEnaxTb7Cq53KBwX.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nvaVwBexi3dVBvhsyEwr8U.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Core i5-8400 demonstrates the benefit of six cores in a threaded game, leading Intel's Core i3-8100 by a significant margin. Still, the Core i3-8100 wields its four cores to great effect, beating the price-comparable Ryzen models by ~13 FPS and sliding past the pricier Ryzen 5s, even after we overclock them.</p><p>Again, the Core i3-7100 tumbles down the chart, falling 24 FPS behind its Coffee Lake-based successor. That's a ~39% generational speed-up in this title.</p><h2 id="far-cry-primal-7">Far Cry Primal</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iufqSJzxZjg6y745PhrQ6d.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mx7NHU6n7vg6r9RPK3ctGC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/fyMFaQ8FDfYDEPGYkiyhk.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YSj4fr4KaRSU3EmRE6sA85.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jPCCjTA7Pf59u3rXzthm7i.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Far Cry Primal's</em> Dunia Engine 2 responds well to high clock rates and IPC throughput. However, it also seems to run better with simultaneous multi-threading disabled. That plays well to the Core i5/i3 and Ryzen 3 models, which don't feature SMT support.</p><p>As expected, Core i3-8100 leaps over its previous-generation counterpart, but lags the Core i3-8350K.</p><p>Even after we lock frequencies to the same 3.9 GHz, our overclocked Ryzen 5 1400 trails the 4C/8T Ryzen 5 1500X. The tuned 1400 wasn't stable with its memory set to 3200 MT/s. Instead, we could only achieve 2933 MT/s, which does affect gaming performance. We suspect the Ryzen 5 1400's 8MB of L3 cache, which is half of what the 1500X includes, has an impact on some workloads.</p><h2 id="rise-of-the-tomb-raider-2">Rise of the Tomb Raider</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7HeqRH6FSduvq3uPKA2quH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DjQTHHaR5NUmos65Y5PiR9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2npCdU9bnQJ6CSYi7Sf4K.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5VRdRXLsZEnqWcSDXNPXHe.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CgC3BECqMo9zCMbUFGJoym.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Rise of the Tomb Raider</em><br/> is a recurrent thorn in AMD's side. Recent patches fixed the most glaring issues, but Intel processors still handily outperform their Ryzen competition. The Core i3-7100 again shows how significantly the entry-level Kaby Lake-based CPUs fall behind today's Coffee Lake models.</p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cheap-cpus,5668.html">Best Cheap CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="adobe-creative-cloud-8">Adobe Creative Cloud</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KCZ7vkYtp9a54iG4NdpizU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/EeTCjABR5tRiz8jJVFsJ6L.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Uieq36fPWxnDhVjerbTv7i.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZqpDeaFkqyVJvpAZqVb54T.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4q3DzacZJwCtGadwL928a7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/EuPjRGDFUhDSu5DzDEofgi.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The Core i3-8100 performs well through our Adobe suite, taking fourth place overall. It beats the Ryzen processors in every test except for the After Effects sub-test, where AMD's unlocked multipliers help swing the advantage in Ryzen 5's direction.</p><h2 id="web-browser-8">Web Browser</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZyREad5khGmTfWp722vHah.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7ZkTNysLW4KwK4Ye8UwtQ3.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cdzPrdE3feQpemrpjDYsxL.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. Intel's Core i3-8100 nudges ahead of the -7100 by a slim margin.</p><p>The MotionMark benchmarks, which focus on testing the graphics subsystem rather than JavaScript performance, are very sensitive to clock rate. That lends the previous-generation Core i3-7100 an upper hand over the -8100.</p><h2 id="productivity-8">Productivity</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2eEzW3EuFC8wL4hpBmPB5V.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Ug6rgozkas4tV6tKLkJmRd.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BsvHQYhfCHNzajyHHRNDqk.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jCWUrM8sc97FsrJq339ifY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/pULHsq2w87zshJBWEAG5yQ.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The application start-up metric measures load-time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers, under warm- and cold-start conditions. Core i3-7100 once again beats the Core i3-8100 due to its higher frequency ceiling. We also see impressive performance enabled by the -8400's top Turbo Boost bin.</p><p>Video conferencing measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for video playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection during the workload to model real-world usage. This task responds well to extra threads, allows the Ryzen 5 1500X to shine. The Core i3-8100 offers solid performance for its price, and it ekes out a win over the competing Ryzen 3 models.</p><p>The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries that use the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, so we see a lot of the same behaviors. The overclocked Ryzen 3 1300X beats Intel's Core i3-8100, and the heftier Ryzen 5 models also perform well. Clock rates play a pivotal role in determining performance, too, as the quad-core Core i3-8350K bests a six-core Core i5-8400.</p><p>Spreadsheet-heavy tests emphasize clock rates even more, so again, Core i3-7100 outperforms the newer -8100. Meanwhile, the -7350K's static 4.2 GHz frequency lends it an advantage over the i3-8350K and i5-8400.</p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cheap-cpus,5668.html">Best Cheap CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="rendering-8">Rendering</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NqQ4Pgs6FQucDtEVUtHyiJ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FCS7LcoUEziGsa5n2saTVW.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Lfhuv88qUvCaLjQ7VG78o5.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/qfCC6VHmkcLExzd56EBQ5E.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4GJu5nZsnpTmZod97kaqYB.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NSVPhLYVVb9rxCghwYFQNi.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Xr3RfJdDVQzHYnyyAyvPyW.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uTWYnqzykax5qFm2jVbxz8.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ch8YDtM2bMfJBPfPSyNjAK.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Single-threaded tests, such as the single-core Cinebench and POV-Ray benchmarks, highlight the Core i3-8100's only real disadvantage against previous-gen Kaby Lake models with higher clock rates. It takes a threaded metric to demonstrate the benefit of Coffee Lake's higher core counts.</p><p>The stock Ryzen 3 models aren't very attractive compared to Core i3-8100 in our multi-core Cinebench and POV-Ray tests. But overclocking shines a spotlight on the value of an unlocked ratio multiplier. Tuned Ryzen 3s nearly match the Core i3-8100, exposing a surprisingly close race in this type of workload. As expected, the bulkier Ryzen 5 models are even more effective, similar to the Core i5-8400.</p><h2 id="encoding-amp-compression-8">Encoding & Compression</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CJA9RXW9LMsD66B2Z4ouy3.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/JHkDkZ8oB4DaC7Rd7aRgRL.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/oHGAhu3BYgEpCZMMHrqcEN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/oQ7XJYxToeSM9crLFiys9e.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Eh7DA279Fk8kRwnVxBvHMg.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mXxR383dMtADKDfsLnEpJA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/M4SCu67DNnbDQJEMY2nRDg.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Core i3-8100 falls below the -7100 (and much of the rest of the field) during our LAME benchmark. AMD's 1300X and 1500X models hold small clock speed advantages over the -8100, but they manage to carve out a sizeable lead. </p><p>The multi-core 7-Zip compression workload naturally favors Ryzen 5 and Core i5, but an overclocked Core i3-8350K also offers incredible performance. The Core i3-8100 and tuned Ryzen 3 1300X fare similarly. The decompression workload goes AMD's way, with tuned Ryzen 5 CPUs leading the test pool.  </p><p>There's a larger delta between Intel and AMD processors during our HandBrake x265 test compared to the x264 benchmark. This is likely due to the former's heavy use of AVX instructions. The Core i3-8100 beats both Ryzen 3 models in the x264 metric, though its lead is largely academic after we overclock AMD's CPUs. During the x265 workload, a heavier mixture of AVX instructions gives the -8100 a much larger lead. It even outpaces the Ryzen 5 models.</p><p>We also provide results from y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes Pi using AVX instructions. We tested with version 0.7.3.9474, which includes Ryzen optimizations. The y-cruncher tests show just how well Intel's processors perform in both single- and multi-threaded AVX workloads.</p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cheap-cpus,5668.html">Best Cheap CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="final-analysis-6">Final Analysis</h2><p>The Core i3-8100 offers a surprisingly balanced performance profile, particularly in light of Intel's recommended price. We did measure a few slow-downs compared to the previous-gen Core i3-7100, but those were expected since Coffee Lake generally delivers more cores at slightly lower clock rates. Aside from those single-threaded outliers, Core i3-8100 is an impressive step forward that redefines what we expect from Intel's mainstream portfolio.</p><p>In the chart below, we plotted gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99<sup>th</sup> percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then converted into an FPS measurement. We're also presenting price-to-performance charts that get split up to include CPUs-only and extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add an extra $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WAjncr5qdfDZ7R6bu8ryLP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/L7whHUECV5f6yv7B5w2XHj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LQtsizkyyb3zsMpDLDXJhR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vXYb57PZjmiK5xsidrQb76.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YLudYQByoLJ9bWjCLqKJEF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sX5CA3qeRLvsNNzRnZQQRb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TQTwCiUhCKzjfMBNEHMCkA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/JVLhiVee8tNfWQDA8H4Vk6.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Intel's Core i3-8100 punches above its price class during our gaming tests. Even an overclocked Ryzen 3 1300X can't match it. But the differences we observed would likely shrink if you swapped out our GeForce GTX 1080 for a more graphics-bound card like GeForce GTX 1060 or Radeon RX 480.</p><p>Most of our application benchmarks favored the Core i3-8100, though its lead over Ryzen 3 was typically pretty small. Overclocking helped AMD's CPUs on more than one occasion, but again, the margins were usually pretty slim. Overall, the Core i3-8100 offers solid application performance in a diverse range of workloads.  </p><p>The Core i3-8100 is currently available online for ~$121. That's just $5 over Intel's recommended price, slotting in between AMD's Ryzen 3 1300X and 1200. Enthusiasts should be happy with two times the physical cores compared to Kaby Lake-based Core i3s. However, we still haven't seen the low-cost motherboards that'll eventually help value-minded builders capitalize on Core i3's allure. The cheapest Z-series motherboards cost ~$120, which isn't a smart pairing for this class of processor. We expect Intel's absentee B-series motherboards to be slightly more expensive than AMD's equivalents. However, Core i3-8100's performance advantage might offset the premium. We'll know more once those cheaper boards surface.</p><p>It'd be great to see an unlocked version of the -8100. For now, this model is surprisingly nimble at its stock settings. Overclockers may want to go for a Core i3-8350K or an AMD Ryzen CPU instead. Of course, we're looking forward to B-series motherboards that'll make the Core i3-8100 an even more attractive option.</p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cheap-cpus,5668.html">Best Cheap CPUs</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ Intel Core i3-8350K Review ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i3-8350k-cpu,5304.html</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ Intel improved its Core i3 family by arming it with four physical cores. Let's see if the unlocked Core i3-8350K can usurp the competition from AMD. ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">6X6RAVrkteD9kw7MBZGMVh</guid>
                                                                                                <enclosure url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ABd3kJsFRhJihobxni2DbL-1280-80.jpg" type="image/jpeg" length="0"></enclosure>
                                                                        <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:00:01 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                <updated>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:27:41 +0000</updated>
                                                                                                                                            <category><![CDATA[CPUs]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[PC Components]]></category>
                                                                                                <author><![CDATA[ palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) ]]></author>                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ Paul Alcorn ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                    <dc:source><![CDATA[ https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RZRmFeQfPy3etHjBQitbGW.jpeg ]]></dc:source>
                                                                <dc:description><![CDATA[ &lt;p&gt;As a teenager, Paul scraped up enough money to buy a 486-powered PC with a turbo button (yes, a turbo button). Back when floppies were still popular he was already chasing after the fastest spinners for his personal computer, which led him down the long and winding storage road, covering enterprise storage. His current focus is on consumer processors, though he still keeps a close eye on the latest storage news. In his spare time, you’ll find Paul hanging out with his kids or indulging his love of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.&lt;/p&gt; ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <media:content type="image/jpeg" url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ABd3kJsFRhJihobxni2DbL-1280-80.jpg">
                                                            <media:credit><![CDATA[null]]></media:credit>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    </media:content>
                                                    <media:thumbnail url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ABd3kJsFRhJihobxni2DbL-1280-80.jpg" />
                                                                                                                                                                    <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <h2 id="core-i3-goes-quad">Core i3 Goes Quad </h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:838px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:114.56%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ABd3kJsFRhJihobxni2DbL.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ABd3kJsFRhJihobxni2DbL.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="838" height="960" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ABd3kJsFRhJihobxni2DbL.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>While the Coffee Lake-based Core i7 and i5 CPUs benefit from 50% more cores, Intel's newest Core i3 CPUs enjoy an even more significant makeover. Previous i3s featured two Hyper-Threaded cores. But these Coffee Lake models come with four physical cores (and no Hyper-Threading), making them more capable in the tasks Core i3s once struggled with.</p><p>In fact, that jump from two to four cores puts Core i3 on the same level as prior Kaby Lake-based Core i5 CPUs. Better still, Intel's official pricing suggests the company now sells quad-core processors where its dual-core chips were once found. There's just one problem: shortages are causing prices to spike, negatively affecting Intel's value story. Hopefully that's rectified sooner than later.</p><p>The Core i3-8350K already has its work cut out: we weren't impressed by last generation's Core i3-7350K, which was too expensive, required a premium Z270-equipped motherboard for overclocking support, and didn't include a cooler. Now Intel has to hope the -8350K fares better in the face of limited availability and higher cost. Unfortunately, the company's continued insistence that a Z-series motherboard is needed for overclocking won't help the value equation. Doubly so since you still don't get a thermal solution.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Active Cores</strong></td><td  ><strong>Base Frequency</strong></td><td  ><strong>1</strong></td><td  ><strong>2</strong></td><td  ><strong>4</strong></td><td  ><strong>6</strong></td></tr><tr><td  >Intel Core i5-8600K</td><td  >3.6 GHz</td><td  >4.3 GHz</td><td  >4.2 GHz</td><td  >4.2 GHz</td><td  >4.1 GHz</td></tr><tr><td  >Intel Core i5-8400</td><td  >2.8 GHz</td><td  >4.0 GHz</td><td  >3.9 GHz</td><td  >3.9 GHz</td><td  >3.8 GHz</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Intel Core i3-8350K </strong></td><td  >4.0</td><td  >4.0</td><td  >4.0</td><td  >4.0</td><td  >-</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Intel Core i3-7350K</strong></td><td  >4.2</td><td  >4.2</td><td  >4.2</td><td  >-</td><td  >-</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>As with older Core i3s, the Coffee Lake models do not include Turbo Boost technology. If you aren't overclocking, this means the -8350K runs at up to 4 GHz, regardless of workload, whereas Core i5 and i7 models accelerate to higher clock rates based on the number of active cores. Moreover, the new Core i3s are limited to DDR4-2400, while Core i5 and i7 give you official access to DDR4-2666.</p><h2 id="specifications-3">Specifications</h2><p>Core i3-8350K&apos;s extra cores impose a few other changes. For instance, L3 cache jumps to 8MB. Compare that to Core i3-7350K&apos;s 4MB or the 6MB found on Core i5 (Kaby Lake). The -8350K is also Intel&apos;s first 91W Core i3. Previously, Core i3-7350K set the high bar with its 65W TDP. It&apos;s only a shame that, as with all K-series processors, you&apos;re on the hook for your own thermal solution.</p><p>The -8350K does come with UHD Graphics 630, which becomes more relevant as we descend Intel&apos;s product stack in search of value. The thing is, we don&apos;t imagine many folks shopping for unlocked CPUs plan on using on-die graphics engines. GeForce GTX 1060 or Radeon RX 580 cards are more probable in the enthusiast-on-a-budget space.</p><p>Intel lists the -8350K at a recommended $168 to $179, similar to its dual-core -7350K. Of course, after a few months of availability, the -7350K started showing up around ~$30 less than its MSRP, where the CPU still sits today. It&apos;d be great to see Coffee Lake CPUs hit their recommended prices sooner than later. Unfortunately, Core i3-8350K starts around $230. Pairing it up to the least-expensive Z370 motherboard, hovering around $120, pushes this chip into six-core Ryzen 5 1600 territory, with its bundled cooler and B350 motherboard support.</p><p>The Core i3-8350K also faces another (somewhat unexpected) competitor in Intel&apos;s 6C/6T Core i5-8400, which sells for just a few dollars more. We&apos;re plenty impressed with the well-rounded -8400 in both games and applications, even if you can&apos;t really tune it. The quad-core -8350K won&apos;t be able to match an i5 in heavily threaded workloads. But its unlocked multiplier should be better suited to gamers aiming for higher frequencies. We have the relevant contenders lined up for testing, so let&apos;s get to it.</p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>Intel & AMD CPU Benchmark Comparisons </strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p><h2 id="overclocking-mce-amp-how-we-test">Overclocking, MCE & How We Test</h2><h2 id="overclocking-6">Overclocking</h2><p>Intel borrowed the AVX offset feature from its high-end processors, introducing it to mainstream CPUs during the Kaby Lake generation. Densely-packed AVX workloads are power-hungry, and thus generate far more heat than non-AVX tasks. The offset is responsible for pulling frequency back when the processor executes AVX instructions, allowing you to achieve higher overclocks without worrying about AVX workloads causing instability.</p><p>The feature came in handy for our Core i3-8350K overclocking efforts. We dialed in a 5 GHz clock rate at 1.32V and passed numerous non-AVX stress tests. But we couldn't achieve stability with AVX-enabled utilities unless we exceeded our preferred limit of 1.35V. Adjusting the AVX offset to -2 set a 4.8 GHz ceiling in AVX workloads. That proved to be Prime95-stable for extended periods.</p><p>Since Core i3-8350K doesn't come with a bundled heat sink and fan, we used our Corsair H115i for testing. Temperatures remained under 70°C with the beefy thermal solution, so heat wasn't a problem as we overclocked. Of course, your mileage may vary, especially if you top Core i3-8350K with a more value-oriented cooler. </p><p>We also have several overclocked Ryzen models in our test pool. These chips are famously <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-review,5014-2.html">sensitive to memory performance</a>, so we attempted to test all overclocked AMD CPUs at a 3200 MT/s data rate. Ryzen 5 1400 was the only processor that fell short, stabilizing at 2933 MT/s.</p><h2 id="multi-core-enhancement-mce">Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE) </h2><p>MSI motherboards feature a default Enhanced Turbo feature that allows K-series processors to run at their maximum Turbo Boost bin across all cores at all times. This setting modifies the CPU's clock rate and voltage to deliver higher performance, which is basically factory-sanctioned overclocking. Again, MSI turns this on by default in its BIOS, similar to most of its competition. Performance, power consumption, and heat are all affected, naturally. We manually disable this option for our stock CPU testing to reflect Intel's specifications.</p><h2 id="msi-z370-gaming-pro-carbon-ac-2">MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC</h2><p>MSI continues its Z-series Gaming Pro motherboards, giving the latest implementation similar features as previous models. Pricing should also end up similar. The exact board details and specifications can be found on the <a href="https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/Z370-GAMING-PRO-CARBON-AC">manufacturer's website</a>.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:916px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:70.85%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sn4DwyvW2g9Eta2A8WNsMR.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sn4DwyvW2g9Eta2A8WNsMR.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="916" height="649" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sn4DwyvW2g9Eta2A8WNsMR.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><h2 id="comparison-processors-2">Comparison Processors</h2>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="974325bb-7fc9-446f-bf3b-80c264343785">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Desktop-Processor-Stealth-YD130XBBAEBOX/dp/B0741DLVL7/?tag=bom_tomshardware-20&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Ryzen 3 1300X" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:74.96%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/a2fUAMCzfcx7bPMQJvSgC3.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 3 1300X</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="60abede7-07c7-4b25-8ffd-2e34734d3ccf">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Stealth-YD1400BBAEBOX/dp/B06XKWT8J4?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware-deal&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Ryzen 5 1400" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:85.95%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ehESbYmVU3NPHD7zSz44mR.png" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 5 1400</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="06126604-f2ed-4409-b81f-509e098858aa">            <a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113436" data-model-name="Ryzen 5 1500X" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:85.95%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ehESbYmVU3NPHD7zSz44mR.png" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 5 1500X</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div><h2 id="test-systems-8">Test Systems</h2><div ><table><thead><tr><th  colspan="2"><strong>Test System & Configuration</strong></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Hardware</strong></td><td  ><strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):</strong>Intel Core i5-8600K, i5-8400, i3-8350KMSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666, 2933, and 3200 <strong>AMD Socket AM4 </strong>AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600, Ryzen 5 1400, Ryzen 3 1300XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 <strong><span>Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)</span></strong>Intel Core i3-7350K, i5-7400 MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 <strong>All</strong> EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703Corsair H115i</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="vrmark-3dmark-amp-aots-escalation-6">VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation</h2><h2 id="vrmark-amp-3dmark-7">VRMark & 3DMark</h2><p>We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.</p><p>Futuremark's VRMark test lets you gauge your system's suitability for use with the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, even if you don't currently own an HMD. The Orange Room test is based on the suggested system requirements for current-generation HTC Vive and Oculus Rift HMDs. Futuremark defines a passing score as anything above 109 FPS.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RYV9UpTQ9Meq9LMBWFDHmM.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YUZ8U5Fc7rQ4YfwrrZTDRQ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TYJe89VSDVjTTFeKvASuG9.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Four cores and a high clock rate benefit the Core i3-8350K in VRMark, particularly after overclocking. The -8350K even challenges the 65W Core i5-8400 at stock settings. A tuned Ryzen 5 1600 is the closest contender from AMD's camp. </p><p>We expected Core i3-8350K to trail the beefier processors during 3DMark's Fire Strike and Time Spy tests, and it does. The -8350K may fall behind much of its competition, but it leapfrogs Core i3-7350K and i5-7400 by a large margin.</p><h2 id="ashes-of-the-singularity-escalation-9">Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DrNeWkcgjymppusQqSE5TX.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CLuRnqumTskJJjXFmocgoJ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GkzEKmJNHnLyYkmVGEZe6D.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Jgq4AUaCTNk63to3wvqz5T.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WEpRFwjL5TmC3ZCB58LPPg.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2gHwsQJmKYVficPrXGCEeW.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</em> scales well with core count, so we find Ryzen 5 1600 up top after some tuning. Intel's stock six-core Core i5-8600K isn't far behind.</p><p>Core i3-8350K easily dispatches the Core i3-7350K in its default configuration, even after we tune Intel's Kaby Lake model. The -8350K responds well to overclocking too, though, and squeaks by the Core i5-8400.</p><p>If we could find the Core i3-8350K anywhere close to its MSRP, the chip would do battle at Ryzen 5 1500X's price point. AMD's 1500X beats the -8350K at stock settings. However, the tables turn once we start tuning. </p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="civilization-vi-battlefield-1-amp-dawn-of-war-iii">Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III </h2><h2 id="civilization-vi-ai-test-9">Civilization VI AI Test</h2><h2 id="3"></h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:75.00%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FErtLxipc3AgRjSst3vRGF.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FErtLxipc3AgRjSst3vRGF.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="834" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FErtLxipc3AgRjSst3vRGF.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Our <em>Civilization VI</em> AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game, and it tends to favor a mixture of high frequency and core count.</p><p>Core i3-7350K performs well in this test, though the i3-8350K leads once we start overclocking. Notably, Core i5-8600K offers nearly the same performance as an overclocked i3, but accomplishes this at its stock frequency. The Ryzen 3 1300X also performs well, beating out more expensive CPUs.</p><p>The Kaby Lake-based -7400 languishes at the bottom of the group due to its 3.5 GHz peak Turbo Boost frequency.</p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-test-9">Civilization VI Graphics Test</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/hXiMYLveKNdRr2XYcNEXXn.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sqyR8dhWbjTZVmyXcWj26g.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/hSrq6DrVbQJj22rbJJLCy3.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/u8ySmey5PW7JAC6SJfHpSR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Mrxk9TqfJqmXGDghWZVmSC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7FvMZKP8qURRsnz3zh8awF.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Core i3-8350K is impressive during the <em>Civilization VI</em> graphics benchmark at stock clocks rates, where it essentially ties the Core i5-8600K and surpasses the Core i5-8400. Tuning provides a nice boost that catapults Core i3 ahead of everything else in our test pool. It seems this title responds exceptionally well to four physical cores, even if the -8350K encounters higher frame time variance in the beginning seconds of our benchmark.</p><h2 id="battlefield-1-dx11">Battlefield 1 (DX11)</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tjawyjUQQLEmo5ZReaYs4M.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/v7iwiWrpGkg6JpJhaw3sTA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/63cxj26YMiNwqvz4mhqJkV.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MaGYvFNHN3TWXgxpopNceA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/e9NkS7kXmxiTUAdVuUMZBR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/9kweWoKDFcU37mTGCYvi8P.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Core i3-7350K's bottom-dwelling performance serves to hammer home the -8350K's step up: it provides a 20% advantage over its predecessor at stock settings. Tuning the Kaby Lake-based chip doesn't do much to close the gap, either.</p><p>Ryzen 5 1500X can't match the Ryzen 5 1600 when we lock them to the same frequency, showing that <em>Battlefield </em>responds well to higher core counts, among other factors. </p><h2 id="warhammer-40-000-dawn-of-war-iii-8">Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tDMrgsEdtLdCDa7QzPFqNf.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/fFyJcYYGsusSWKiqC82brj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/e9ZqygN2XG24TpyNxqeGQT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7s5YffuMrg5u3xmbHQeARe.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/EXRTb6FPz9NwW4V9mEPhB4.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5kXJf84ie44UKXuYjzU737.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The <em>Warhammer 40,000: DoW III</em> benchmark scales well with execution resources, but aggressive clock rates also provide a big benefit.</p><p>Intel's Core i3-8350K falls beneath the i5-8600K and i5-8400 at stock settings, and the tuned Ryzen 5 1600 also proves to be a formidable competitor.</p><p>Overclocking the Core i3-8350K unleashes a big speed-up, though, that reminds us of what we saw from Intel's <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-core-i5-8600k-cpu,5264-4.html">Core i5-8600K</a>. We don't have the overclocked -8600K in this batch of results, but it does outperform the -8350K with 122.8 FPS.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="grand-theft-auto-v-hitman-amp-shadow-of-mordor">Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman & Shadow of Mordor</h2><h2 id="grand-theft-auto-v-10">Grand Theft Auto V</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5P6Arj2wM5BwXty5VhwPiR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Ubm9689QMEmMGJE53XbDVm.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/aBxwzs2GD8pQpqeRjgmSLj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YBtcCWP9josRvSaabSDYcd.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mpwdD7XpG6D6EmpXsTGpiY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2rCYrDsEa2cNDiCxJJQKwD.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Core i3-8350K falls behind the higher-end Coffee Lake models at stock settings, but overclocking changes that completely.</p><p>The Ryzen models aren't as competitive in this benchmark, even after overclocking.</p><p>A huge performance difference between the stock Core i3-7350K and -8350K is striking. This certainly isn't the generational step forward we're used to from Intel. </p><h2 id="hitman-2016-2">Hitman (2016)</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2wYBhCc9pqh9NT8vsum8hf.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/CvBr4kmvWue9gX9yaBg5oZ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/D3uJ3jnnyjBFy42vdgKD9K.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yMJzbDdcFC9f2qHU5kAdZR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8mcgBZXTVV5AApE2tNVKWN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wCaKgWsTqeqbeToJsUzEnR.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The -8350K falls beneath AMD's 6C/12T Ryzen 5 1600 at stock settings, but overclocking sees the two chips switch places.</p><p>Core i5-8400 and -8600K profit greatly from their 6C/6T designs, carving out a lead over the lesser-equipped Core i3-8350K. Meanwhile, the older Core i3-7350K finds itself near the bottom of our chart; tuning does provide a considerable boost, though.</p><h2 id="middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-2">Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QcBCpQgybo7N2yihEgqsp.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QwKdX4JPeqt74PYX9XHBxZ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/aRm4Q46mLra39JGDYXZZj3.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/UPSVU7M94JFt2cxC9CijF4.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GFnZ4NYmdjEv9b5eZSNKfQ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/qFfrBWWLc2zxv9jTjr3VsJ.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>This title is about as single-threaded as it gets, so clock rates and IPC throughput tend to affect frame rates most.</p><p>Core i3-7350K takes a big lead over the Coffee Lake-based processors in both stock and overclocked configurations.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="project-cars-far-cry-primal-amp-rise-of-the-tomb-raider">Project CARS, Far Cry Primal & Rise of the Tomb Raider</h2><h2 id="project-cars-2">Project CARS</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/w5xRAjJdgxHd5MJfxjSMRY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WmjoaHbrsYEe3D9G3KrQsL.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xEG9WFvBabPjm5hE97u9KP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Qpq3hMftQLLbJG7Mbx2vYS.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/brhVvhRMZZQr7dcU4Wn3Fb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BdTRpDKvoQgK2xHUiovt34.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Core i3-8350K performs surprisingly well in <em>Project CARS</em>, even beating the 6C/6T Core i5-8400. This could be because the -8350K features a stock 4 GHz clock rate, while Core i5-8400's base 2.8 GHz is pushed up to 4 GHz via Turbo Boost and may not benefit fully from its peak frequency bin.</p><p>Surprisingly, the overclocked Ryzen 5 1600 trails Intel's overclocked Core i3-7350K.</p><h2 id="far-cry-primal-8">Far Cry Primal</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/AzZVnxsUV4DovdsEjA6toU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LQ6mAXqHkxPhy7wTHfA42M.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TtskVJdgStzmzxwvKrYJA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5aUMChA3ZhQT9k7DY7FzDQ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/extqnFnYVjjVaLP8AZyPCU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2dsiUSZkvJAWqPmWacWF28.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Far Cry Primal's</em> Dunia Engine 2 responds well to high clock rates and IPC throughput. However, it also seems to prefer simultaneous multi-threading disabled. That plays well to the Core i5 and i3 models, which don't feature Hyper-Threading.</p><p>Intel's processors clump together at the top of the chart with nearly identical frame rates. But a bit of tuning helps the Core i3-8350K break through that 101 FPS ceiling.</p><h2 id="rise-of-the-tomb-raider-3">Rise of the Tomb Raider</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8TyqfKsV7zt2yjNNi4QNzE.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GUfFMhvwh7zQXyBci9gNBP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iiMUQfMfWabxk9suAzsGmU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/hNpE7LVyGkxQargX3Ga8iN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mh9hEviTAqq5VW6dnWuR3B.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wysA6WA5USHJFYDuhRdaBF.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Rise of the Tomb Raider</em> is a thorn in AMD's side. Even after recent game updates, which helped fix the most glaring issues, our test pool separates into two distinct tiers with the Intel processors up top and AMD processors below. We've seen this play out through most of our game testing with Coffee Lake-based CPUs.</p><p>Of course, while Intel wins when we look at raw performance, AMD still has a compelling value story, particularly in the application testing...</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="office-amp-productivity-6">Office & Productivity</h2><h2 id="adobe-creative-cloud-9">Adobe Creative Cloud</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iyMM9DnYrRcnVEkeajKzaG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jNU4ytsxn7hZbyg9YiynbT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PMdE6K428GfQh62jEcYtiY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eE3cQGYYWZHeNJmHpsi6yQ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uBj7S9MwHssrWr5GwUcgpZ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GvmxPMPHKfQTHkViMwKvoc.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Most of the Adobe Suite responds well to high clock rates and IPC throughput, favoring Intel's CPUs. InDesign scales well with core count, but Intel's Coffee Lake models cling on to a lead nonetheless.</p><h2 id="web-browser-9">Web Browser</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/JTMVSCgbdPzEFr5F2YFCbG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ftzAJ8RBAxmNxK5LqNXyLB.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/neEvTgCnrzXK68TrkkZDPi.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The web browsing tests are largely organized into per-core performance, so frequency and IPC throughput clearly matter most. These results mirror what we found in Adobe's suite: mainly, Intel's Coffee Lake processors offer higher performance.</p><h2 id="productivity-9">Productivity</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kcu5MifZ5tFzVjo44ELaBc.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vdYGfrLrEa9M3uVXVvDX6D.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MECUqh4g3WQysuqMtFwhND.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xPoR3cwanA7xbf9XeBXDBT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/fH52rFwQr9BH4sZp3kcdU6.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The application start-up metric measures load-time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers, under warm- and cold-start conditions. Intel's Core i3-8350K scores well in the test, though the -7350K's 4.2 GHz clock rate also facilitates impressive performance. It even beats Core i5-8400.</p><p>Video conferencing measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for video playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection during the workload to model real-world usage. As you might imagine, cores and cache play a big role in determining the outcome of this benchmark. The Ryzen 5 1600 leads the default-configured CPUs, and overclocking improves its standing. A stock Ryzen 5 1500X leverages its eight threads to beat the stock Core i3-8350K, but they switch places after overclocking. Surprisingly, the Core i5-8400's two extra cores don't translate to a big lead over the -8350K.</p><p>The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries that use the ImageMagick library. A tuned Ryzen 5 1600 tops the chart again, though the overclocked -8350K lands in second place. It's not as fast at Intel's factory-set frequency, and AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X even scores a win over the stock -8350K. Similar to what we saw in the video conferencing test, Core i3-7350K shows us the liability of its dual-core design in heavily-threaded workloads.</p><p>A spreadsheet-heavy test emphasizes clock rates most, though we do see the impact of a less successful memory overclock from our tuned Ryzen 5 1400. It might be surprising to see Ryzen 3 1300X on top of the other Ryzen CPUs at stock settings, but it and the 1500X have the highest boost frequencies (4.7 GHz) of our AMD models. </p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="rendering-encoding-amp-compression-6">Rendering, Encoding & Compression</h2><h2 id="rendering-9">Rendering</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/YRsMNiHnZKqWCqNXqarAXF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XY9sUhgYs53QukGBbPJuc3.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/r4spLCS9KtnGGSLrWZi4cj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/fHxQschAfiPQrWJfJwkXcV.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Tg7QTnzHsyCBJnGtuyvqRc.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HHPafysuAHAVnNUgDQ2eXA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/hxQ68od9AkCigAjdUtzQMi.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VeQQBdAU4hVwPK2hHv5pzH.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/56QaKvPU2E7LG8ThCC9CJb.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Core i3-8350K performs well, as expected, during the single-threaded Cinebench test. But it isn't nearly as impressive when the workload spreads out over more cores. We do observe a big performance speed-up compared to Intel's Kaby Lake models, including the quad-core Core i5-7400. And the overclocked -8350K is surprisingly competitive with AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X after overclocking. However, the stock 1500X offers more performance due to its higher thread count.</p><p>Heavily-threaded workloads are AMD's forte these days, so its Ryzen 5 1600 fares unsurprisingly well in our rendering tests. Even at stock settings, the Ryzen 5 1600 leverages its 12 threads to lead almost all of the threaded benchmarks. On the flip side of the coin, Ryzen 5 1600 rocks the third-lowest boost frequency among our Ryzen line-up, so the stock configuration loses steam during the lightly-threaded tests. The value of AMD's unlocked multiplier is undisputed. But even after overclocking, we're still trading quite a bit of single-threaded performance to gain the impressive performance in rendering applications.</p><p>Core i5-8400 provides a solid mix of performance in both lightly- and heavily-threaded workloads.</p><h2 id="encoding-amp-compression-9">Encoding & Compression</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GM5xpGKuJ7Pvza27TS7RkF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TysMdAXGvocrGhoqoiF42g.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Fgky4GxbyTBiMFzmgGnDY4.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/P4aM2KT4G7o3FkV5tpeY7a.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/teGZjhvtRrVBQc4AQ3v6Dj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xPk4CaSpCrU4jfdAyFGrwU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/qYByRcCsLVyyQaPVj7rc5U.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>LAME responds well to higher frequencies, as evidenced by the tight grouping of overclocked models at the top of the chart. Core i3-7350K leads the group at stock settings, with Core i3-8350K close behind. Intel's Core i5-8400 trails most of the test pool, suggesting that it might not be hitting its peak Turbo Boost frequency consistently through our benchmark.</p><p>AMD's Ryzen 5 1600 dominates the compression and decompression workloads, but all of the Ryzen processors excel in our integer-heavy decompression workload after tuning. Core i5-7400's relatively low 3.5 GHz ceiling hinders performance significantly during the 7-Zip workloads.</p><p>A quick reminder: we tested the overclocked -8350K with a 4.8 GHz AVX offset, which is particularly important in the HandBrake and y-cruncher tests. There's a larger delta between the Intel and AMD processors during our HandBrake x265 test than the x264 test, and it's likely due to the former's heavy use of AVX instructions. Core i3-8350K is surprisingly adept in both workloads, even challenging the Ryzen 5 1500X at stock frequencies during the x264 test run. A quick glance at Core i3-7350K again speaks volumes of the huge step forward Intel took with Coffee Lake.</p><p>We also provide results from y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes Pi using AVX instructions. We tested with version 0.7.3.9474, which includes Ryzen optimizations. Despite a 4.8 GHz AVX offset, the tuned -8350K offers stellar AVX performance.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="final-analysis-7">Final Analysis</h2><p>Dramatic changes to the Core line-up are a boon to PC enthusiasts, and there is little to complain about in the performance department. Intel's Core i3-8350K gives us twice as many cores at a supposedly comparable price point versus the previous generation. But considering we didn't like that last model much, the -8350K would need to be exceptional to earn our affection.</p><p>In the chart below, we plotted gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99<sup>th</sup> percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then converted into an FPS measurement. We're also presenting price-to-performance charts that get split up to include CPUs-only and extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add an extra $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BSLWYPUiGcjsePKZvqvARG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XdvMxSNhAqoLf7fR2DgcVk.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZQXH5smqHRnDzhzmZUVUWK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Jme5LwyY8du6Ed6nKEuLpG.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/P6eCzZGiAvdNKhcthjSkjb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jVMdogweEGXdPFUXrR5xdY.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/MUew3KKpJpPgAK7yZLi2vh.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QjR5mmLq8EDoqyyB5SA6kj.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>It's hard to beat an overclocked Core i3-8350K for gaming unless you have the cash for a pricier Core i5 or i7. In fact, the i3-8350K is surprisingly competitive with those more expensive Coffee Lake-based models if you spend some time overclocking. And Core i3-8350K destroys Kaby Lake in everything. An overclocked Ryzen 5 1600 provides the biggest challenge from AMD, but it's only able to go up against the stock -8350K. Overclocking propels this chip into a league of its own. The less expensive Ryzen 5 1500X also makes a compelling case for enthusiasts willing to turn the overclocking dials, but its much lower stock performance isn't as attractive.</p><p>The Core i3-8350K is surprisingly agile in our application suite. We recorded impressive performance in lightly-threaded applications, and observed competitive results in the multi-threaded workloads, too. Of course, any threaded benchmark is going to go Ryzen 5 1600's way. But Intel's quad-core Core i3 does help close distance that Kaby Lake lost to Ryzen, so the losses in heavily-threaded workloads aren't as pronounced.</p><p>And that's the issue we have right now with Ryzen 5 1600. You gain some performance in productivity workloads, as expected from a 6C/12T processor, but you lose quite a bit of single-threaded speed in other applications. Core i3-8350K presents a more balanced profile.</p><p>Speaking of balanced, the Core i5-8400 is our biggest winner here. You can drop it into a cheaper B-series platform, once those arrive, and get a really good mix of performance across the board. It also comes with a bundled cooler. You won't get the extreme gaming performance available from an overclocked Core i3-8350K, but you're going to gain a lot of flexibility in other workloads. Software is undoubtedly evolving to utilize multi-core architectures more extensively, so the two extra cores should come in handy down the road.</p><p>We weren't particularly fond of Intel's Core i3-7350K. Its high-end motherboard requirement and lack of a bundled cooler were out of touch for this value-sensitive segment. Core i3-8350K suffers from the same problems, compounded by limited availability leading to insane premiums. Even at Intel's MSRP, you're only a few bucks away from the six-core -8400 that comes with a thermal solution and drops into a cheaper motherboard.</p><p>Given what we've seen from Coffee Lake, it's time to steer you clear of Kaby Lake. But Intel won't let us. The lack of any meaningful Coffee Lake availability is causing severe price gouging, making it difficult for us to recommend anything from Intel's line-up right now. Should the Coffee Lake models fall to where they're supposed to be, they'll represent a big step forward in computing power for your dollar.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ Intel Core i5-8400 Review: Six Cores On A Budget ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-core-i5-8400-cpu,5281.html</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ Intel's Core i5-8400 is the cheapest modern six-core CPU out there. Can Coffee Lake on a budget hold its own against the mighty Ryzen 5? ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">vHZmh5Gpm2ukDbgA5Rzyq3</guid>
                                                                                                <enclosure url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XdMbWrzTiXab2hPt2y7gFQ-1280-80.jpg" type="image/jpeg" length="0"></enclosure>
                                                                        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                <updated>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:27:19 +0000</updated>
                                                                                                                                            <category><![CDATA[CPUs]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[PC Components]]></category>
                                                                                                <author><![CDATA[ palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) ]]></author>                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ Paul Alcorn ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                    <dc:source><![CDATA[ https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/RZRmFeQfPy3etHjBQitbGW.jpeg ]]></dc:source>
                                                                <dc:description><![CDATA[ &lt;p&gt;As a teenager, Paul scraped up enough money to buy a 486-powered PC with a turbo button (yes, a turbo button). Back when floppies were still popular he was already chasing after the fastest spinners for his personal computer, which led him down the long and winding storage road, covering enterprise storage. His current focus is on consumer processors, though he still keeps a close eye on the latest storage news. In his spare time, you’ll find Paul hanging out with his kids or indulging his love of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.&lt;/p&gt; ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <media:content type="image/jpeg" url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XdMbWrzTiXab2hPt2y7gFQ-1280-80.jpg">
                                                            <media:credit><![CDATA[null]]></media:credit>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    </media:content>
                                                    <media:thumbnail url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XdMbWrzTiXab2hPt2y7gFQ-1280-80.jpg" />
                                                                                                                                                                    <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <h2 id="meet-intel-39-s-core-i5-8400">Meet Intel's Core i5-8400</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1414px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:108.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Mbp7fKeJrnqTAagSTBP399.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Mbp7fKeJrnqTAagSTBP399.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1414" height="1540" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Mbp7fKeJrnqTAagSTBP399.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>There's no doubt that AMD's Ryzen processors challenged Intel's position in the desktop PC market this summer. Seemingly in response (though we all know this stuff is planned way in advance), the Coffee Lake-based Core i7 and i5 CPUs landed with six cores each. That was a first for Intel's mainstream platform.</p><p>The Core i5 series typically offers enthusiasts the best performance for their dollar. But with those two extra cores, Intel's highest-end Core i5 is now faster than Core i7-7700K in most games, and even in some applications. This means the Coffee Lake Core i5s basically replace last generation's Core i7s. Talk about a huge step forward. Now the mid-range chips can backstop top-end GPUs without becoming bottlenecks.</p><p>For more information on Coffee Lake's impact in the mainstream space, check out our <strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-core-i5-8600k-cpu,5264.html">Intel Core i5-8600K Review</a></strong>. Today, though, we're focusing on the less expensive, but multiplier-locked, Core i5-8400.</p><div ><table><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Active Cores</strong></td><td  >Base Frequency</td><td  ><strong>1</strong></td><td  ><strong>2</strong></td><td  ><strong>4</strong></td><td  ><strong>6</strong></td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Intel Core i5-8600K </strong></td><td  >3.6 GHz</td><td  >4.3 GHz</td><td  >4.2 GHz</td><td  >4.2 GHz</td><td  >4.1 GHz</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Intel Core i5-8400</strong></td><td  >2.8 GHz</td><td  >4.0 GHz</td><td  >3.9 GHz</td><td  >3.9 GHz</td><td  >3.8 GHz</td></tr><tr><td  >Intel Core i5-7400</td><td  >3.0 GHz</td><td  >3.5 GHz</td><td  >3.4 GHz</td><td  >3.3 GHz</td><td  >-</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>Like the more expensive Core i5-8600K, Intel&apos;s -8400 features six cores without Hyper-Threading. Aside from its locked multiplier, the key differences boil down to clock rates, thermal design power, and price. A 2.8 GHz base frequency is the lowest of all Coffee Lake-based processors, including Intel&apos;s Core i3 models. That&apos;s because the company had to squeeze into the -8400&apos;s 65W TDP, while Core i5-8600K gets a 95W rating, allowing the same silicon to accommodate a 3.6 GHz base.</p><p>On the surface, a lower clock rate looks bad for performance. But remember that Intel&apos;s Turbo Boost technology accelerates frequencies within certain parameters. This allows the -8400 to go quite a bit faster in workloads that don&apos;t tax all of the -8400&apos;s cores. As you can see in the table above, the 8400&apos;s multi-core Turbo Boost bins get a lot more aggressive than Core i5-7400&apos;s. And they only trail the -8600K by 300 MHz.</p><p>Core i5-8400 drops into a LGA 1551 interface, but as we know from our previous Coffee Lake reviews, <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-coffee-lake-z270-z370-motherboard,35554.html">it isn&apos;t backward compatible with 200-series motherboards</a>. That means you&apos;ll have to step up to a 300-series motherboard, even though that means getting no new features in the process. Worse, a rushed launch means the Z370 chipset is your only option for now. Cheaper B- and H-series motherboards, which will cost a lot less, arrive at the beginning of next year. The Core i5-8400 is a locked processor anyway, so the reason most enthusiasts would have had for spending extra (overclocking) doesn&apos;t apply here.</p><p>Intel cites a $182 recommended customer price, which is the same as its Kaby Lake-based Core i5-7400. That&apos;d be a great value for 50% more cores. However, poor supply means that the -8400 is popping in and out of stock, selling for as little as $200 when the big shops receive a shipment. When they run out, smaller vendors run the price up closer to $260. That&apos;s Ryzen 5 1600X territory. AMD also has an advantage in that you can plug its Ryzen chips into B350-based motherboards selling for as little as $80. At least the competing models both include bundled coolers; we don&apos;t always get such a luxury in the high-end space, where you&apos;re often expected to supply your own thermal solution.</p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html"><strong>Best CPUs</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html"><strong>Intel & AMD Processor Benchmark Comparisons</strong></a></p><p><br><strong>MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus"><strong>All CPUs Content</strong></a></p><h2 id="how-we-test">How We Test</h2><h2 id="test-notes-2">Test Notes</h2><p>MSI motherboards, like many others, feature a default Enhanced Turbo feature that allows the processor to run at its maximum Turbo Boost bin on all cores, at all times. For all practical purposes, this is the same as overclocking. The feature only applies to K-series processors, though, so it isn't a factor in our Core i5-8400 testing.</p><p>We paired our sample with a Z370-based motherboard, which does support faster memory. Sticking with Intel's official specification, we used DDR4-2666 modules to represent the data rates you'll have access to once B- and H-series motherboards surface.</p><p>As far as we can tell on our MSI motherboard, Intel isn't allowing BCLK adjustments. That means the Core i5-8400 locks us down to stock settings.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:916px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:70.85%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sn4DwyvW2g9Eta2A8WNsMR.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sn4DwyvW2g9Eta2A8WNsMR.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="916" height="649" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sn4DwyvW2g9Eta2A8WNsMR.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><h2 id="comparison-products-7">Comparison Products</h2>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="b99cbcf5-6911-49dd-87c8-cc5c950319d4">            <a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113434" data-model-name="Ryzen 5 1600X" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:75.00%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cnR74jNTGXP9TR45Swwx8j.jpg" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 5 1600X</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="bd9017e9-4d12-4014-b0c9-955b49b10368">            <a href="http://redirect.viglink.com?key=6c0b046b3e0ec746fbbe9b03fac3f09b&u=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113436" data-model-name="Ryzen 5 1500X" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:85.95%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ehESbYmVU3NPHD7zSz44mR.png" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 5 1500X</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div>        <div class="featured_product_block featured_block_hero" data-id="0fd50c07-97ab-45ac-a14c-0cd7bc7e55bf">            <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Stealth-YD1400BBAEBOX/dp/B06XKWT8J4?tag=hawk-future-20&ascsubtag=tomshardware-deal&ascsubtag=%site%%transactionId%-gclid-%gclid%-Fallback" data-model-name="Ryzen 5 1400" data-model-brand="" ><div class='product-image-widthsetter'><p class='vanilla-image-block' data-bordeaux-image-check style='padding-top:85.95%';><img style="width: 100%" class="featured_image" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ehESbYmVU3NPHD7zSz44mR.png" alt=""></p></div></a>            <div class="featured_product_details_wrapper">                <div class="featured_product_title_wrapper">                                                                                <div class="featured__title">AMD Ryzen 5 1400</div>                                    </div>                <div class="subtitle__description">                                                            <p> </p>                </div>                            </div>        </div><h2 id="test-systems-9">Test Systems</h2><p>We introduced our new test system and methodology in <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/how-we-test-graphics-cards,4912.html"><strong>How We Test Graphics Cards</strong></a>. If you'd like more detail about our general approach, check that piece out.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:3840px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:66.74%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TnvGnyBUzq8wQvNcYSXJbd.jpg" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TnvGnyBUzq8wQvNcYSXJbd.jpg" align="" fullscreen="1" width="3840" height="2563" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TnvGnyBUzq8wQvNcYSXJbd.jpg' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Only our CPU, memory, motherboard, and cooling subsystem are different. The table below summarizes the hardware we used to generate our data.</p><div ><table><thead><tr><th  colspan="2"><strong>Test System & Configuration</strong></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td  ><strong>Hardware</strong></td><td  ><strong><strong><strong>Germany </strong></strong></strong><strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):</strong>Intel Core i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2666<strong>AMD Socket </strong><strong>AM4 Workstation</strong>AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600X, Ryzen 5 1400MSI X370 Tomahawk4x 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 <strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)</strong>Intel Core i5-7600K, Core i5-7400MSI Z270 Gaming 72x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2400 and 3200<strong>All Systems</strong>GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming)Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System)2x 960GB Toshiba OCZ TR150 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Power SupplyWindows 10 Pro (Creators Update)<strong><strong>U.S.</strong></strong><strong>Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):</strong>Intel Core i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 <strong>AMD Socket AM4 </strong>AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600X, Ryzen 5 1400MSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 <strong><span>Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)</span></strong>Intel Core i5-7600K, Core i5-7400 MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 <strong>All</strong> EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Cooling</strong></td><td  ><strong>Germany</strong>Alphacool Eiszeit 2000 ChillerAlphacool Eisblock XPXThermal Grizzly Kryonaut (For Cooler Switch)</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Monitor</strong></td><td  >Eizo EV3237-BK</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>PC Case</strong></td><td  >Lian Li PC-T70 with Extension Kit and Mods Configurations: Open Benchtable, Closed Case</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Power Consumption Measurement</strong></td><td  >Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100 kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500 MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Thermal Measurement</strong></td><td  >1x Optris PI640 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording</td></tr><tr><td  ><strong>Acoustic Measurement</strong></td><td  >NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="vrmark-3dmark-amp-aots-escalation-7">VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation</h2><h2 id="vrmark-amp-3dmark-8">VRMark & 3DMark</h2><p>We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.</p><p>Futuremark's VRMark test lets you gauge your system's suitability for use with the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, even if you don't currently own an HMD. The Orange Room test is based on the suggested system requirements for current-generation HTC Vive and Oculus Rift HMDs. Futuremark defines a passing score as anything above 109 FPS.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GRQwzL3H5ryGrmTZKJp5H7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yMePmwWwyA3YFcS8JeJud6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/hfbPFuj5LGQ3gVKJrN2n7a.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/hqyYWXnhS7gmxbt7CMLTqT.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The Core i5-8400 performs well in VRMark, even besting overclocked Ryzen 5 CPUs. Intel's previous-gen Core i5-7400 trails quite a ways back, helping illustrate the -8400's Turbo Boost binning and core count advantage. The -8400 also competes well against the pricier Core i5-8600K, particularly in light of its substantial base frequency deficit. Then again, the -8600K isn't overclocked, and that's what it was designed for.</p><p>The -8400 also challenges Core i5-8600K in the DX11 and DX12 CPU tests. Not surprisingly, it easily trounces the Core i5-7400 with up to 60% more performance. More interesting, perhaps, is that Core i5-8400 beats the Core i5-7600K by a fair margin. </p><h2 id="ashes-of-the-singularity-escalation-10">Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</h2><p><em>Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation</em> also scales well with core count. Although many enthusiasts associate this game with AMD (Mantle, anyone?), remember that it didn't run well on Ryzen processors at first. A series of patches subsequently rectified the most glaring issues we identified in our early reviews.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KRjoC3v8jMhx74pE762DCN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/H2kUNoKYPBGxeo9Ak7KJ45.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uhaNNDAdPz4V93VZB9u7hL.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DSZ6TRotpV5EvhxqPjpwV6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VZEKwztU4uhBGGa65GhGcj.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iztrLmE3gdYhgKnZSE5aeb.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Given the strong performance of AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X, we might surmise that it's AMD's simultaneous multi-threading technology allowing the chip to shine.</p><p>Again, Core i5-8400 is within striking range of its more expensive K-series counterpart, and it easily outmaneuvers its predecessor.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="civilization-vi-battlefield-1-amp-dawn-of-war-iii-2">Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III </h2><h2 id="civilization-vi-ai-test-10">Civilization VI AI Test</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:75.00%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BayExi9sfE3JrjXrP3MJsA.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BayExi9sfE3JrjXrP3MJsA.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="834" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BayExi9sfE3JrjXrP3MJsA.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The <em>Civilization VI</em> AI test tends to favor a mixture of physical cores, clock rate, and IPC throughput.</p><p>Core i5-8400 essentially ties the Kaby Lake-based -7600K and easily rocks the Core i5-7400. AMD's Ryzen processors trail due to their lower frequencies.</p><h2 id="civilization-vi-graphics-test-10">Civilization VI Graphics Test</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KRjoC3v8jMhx74pE762DCN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/H2kUNoKYPBGxeo9Ak7KJ45.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uhaNNDAdPz4V93VZB9u7hL.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DSZ6TRotpV5EvhxqPjpwV6.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iztrLmE3gdYhgKnZSE5aeb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VZEKwztU4uhBGGa65GhGcj.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>AMD's unlocked ratio multipliers bring great value to the desktop. The 4C/8T Ryzen 5 1500X trails the -8400 by quite a ways in stock form. However, overclocking makes it competitive. The 6C/12T Ryzen 5 1600X fares much better out of the box, and then jumps into a commanding lead after some tuning.</p><p>This workload again demonstrates the -8400's generational improvement over Kaby Lake-based chips with fewer cores at lower clock rates.</p><h2 id="battlefield-1-dx11-2">Battlefield 1 (DX11)</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QK93393VicoH7ptAraYvc4.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KAiQrNkaTAfBLcEb787une.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VwYbqxGonnM4VUmgVVRnD3.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DnD7qBoDX6ysnd3bNuiUUB.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vdGGt9uDUv6UpSDSeyqc9B.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZczR8r5mHP9gDiLjxMX6AA.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Both the Core i5-8600K and -8400 appear graphics-bound in our 1920x1080 benchmark. There's more of a delta between the other contenders, though.</p><p>Core i5-8400 offers 17% more performance than the -7400. That's a significant outcome, given the two chips' similar price points.</p><h2 id="warhammer-40-000-dawn-of-war-iii-9">Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/G9cuJKTUM6EKCBN6c9oNjm.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gYHwuuADaev2E9koQMwofN.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cT8Gq8ngfua2gy8zY6PHf3.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VEFxYwjuERzmsaQyRDrjBU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jPJp2P8zxHmh5m8itmDztX.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8tmDmJrcWaqDGWLvNDBUaG.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The <em>Warhammer 40,000: DoW III</em> benchmark scales well with increased execution resources, but aggressive clock rates also provide a big benefit.</p><p>Strangely, Core i5-8400 beats the more expensive Core i5-8600K. This outcome doesn't make much sense, given the specifications in front of us. Clock rates and dissimilar TDPs are the only differences between them, and Core i5-8600K has the advantage in both.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="grand-theft-auto-v-hitman-amp-shadow-of-mordor-2">Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman & Shadow of Mordor</h2><h2 id="grand-theft-auto-v-11">Grand Theft Auto V</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/aPRhBPBoTEFWxoqdReNeEW.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yEtZHM9ncknWkKHJck7gtc.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uQfrPbjFQG8wgifjJ6gDBb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DGQH2y8LLfsDnyrwjWynrF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ahUKgZjYkT3fk7HGVEukj9.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LRsQWXwF83yVCuWzjgmHoF.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The Core i5-8400 averages 17%-higher frame rates compared to Core i5-7600K. That's a solid jump, but it pales in comparison to the 26% lead over Core i5-7400.</p><p>AMD isn't quite as competitive in this title, though we still think overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X and 1500X CPUs are good complements to the mid-range graphics cards most enthusiasts will pair with them.</p><h2 id="hitman-2016-3">Hitman (2016)</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wxgDdPvcRB3hThAMJLu8eC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Xir3rugX9e59iHRWxiWmP4.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DfiqKkKiQnyPjyaqV6mUtF.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vekPQDZXT695PjpdoQJ6oA.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kdqRYnmNqLT8w2bheLie3W.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cRVz7AayAtAqPnJBeP52kT.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Hitman </em>finds the Core i5-8400 ahead of everything except for Intel's higher-end Core i5-8600K.</p><p>We don't need to break out the percentages to illustrate Coffee Lake's improvements (but we will anyway). Core i5-8400 jumps ahead of the -7600K by 40%, and it beats the -7400 by an astounding 54%.</p><h2 id="middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-3">Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KuUW3WEVTCpuiaJXkoEWeb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/FL6YwZVPFx2Js53wSyqSAC.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/9f3c3yjYGWygHdC2YdHxxe.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/bPzvjj8f4FhRWaP9difbph.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eXVSp2JruqZQtkajBmWpZU.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/GP5hBHzRodtszySdG6XKrY.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>The -7600K and -7400 feature higher base frequencies than their Coffee Lake-based counterparts, and that's an advantage in games that don't benefit much from Turbo Boost. <em>Shadow of Mordor</em> falls into that category, so the Kaby Lake models take small leads over the newer Core i5-8600K and -8400.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="project-cars-far-cry-primal-amp-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-2">Project CARS, Far Cry Primal & Rise of the Tomb Raider</h2><h2 id="project-cars-3">Project CARS</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8WPUqJbnV9jGSfrQJ5yLdK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8xfK96YAtMaKiSCazKfFvK.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/X4JyE34GmnaVvti43YEure.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4f3doaNPmusW2QhJzSB5cT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wVDt4sRj4x3y2JwbNS4K5U.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KwdrmVYgXYQS9HNHyaam6V.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>Given the results we've seen in other threaded titles, our results in <em>Project CARS</em> aren't surprising. Intel's Coffee Lake models establish a quantifiable lead over Kaby Lake-based chips.</p><p>An overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X is also competitive, though it's a lot more expensive than Core i5-8400. Of course, you could always go for the Ryzen 5 1600, which offers similar performance as the 1600X after overclocking. But it'd still trail the Core i5-8400. </p><h2 id="far-cry-primal-9">Far Cry Primal</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/F6PtqsNRDZZFE4UQabu5Gn.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/fkCzSeUKKzmofbL3mJ3jg7.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DQQ4ijXM6QMLXVWehMp8mh.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/wDKyuMtd4yNebfXe7QjkTR.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/iYbvDcakPqPJ8BYEDEf9nb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/734Hb9SY5fPmYS4pJJFH3D.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Far Cry Primal's</em> Dunia Engine 2 responds well to high clock rates and IPC throughput. However, it also seems to like when we turn off simultaneous multi-threading.</p><p>Both Coffee Lake-based Core i5s are tied, likely due to a graphics-imposed bottleneck.</p><p>The overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X and 1500X beat Intel's Kaby Lake processors. Then again, the -7600K is overclockable itself, so it'd offer additional performance if we pushed beyond stock settings. </p><h2 id="rise-of-the-tomb-raider-4">Rise of the Tomb Raider</h2><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Sz9DvzceT4asewW3hJ8ULE.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/PCkddap2uXfpDKGhWJYkgV.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zmYJLxgaorbMU5daDRHm4n.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/QknFsBGBVyUk9FJjfn2RBT.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/hQV9WwvRoLPu5YdxUq4E8a.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6JsAzL5rgQuBXU6NY43E2K.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p><em>Rise of the Tomb Raider</em> shows three Core i5s essentially tied for first place, likely due to a graphics bottleneck.</p><p>The Core i5-7400 shows us its less attractive side, kicking out several disturbing frame time outliers that manifest as visible stuttering.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="dtp-office-amp-multimedia-performance">DTP, Office & Multimedia Performance</h2><h2 id="dtp-and-presentation">DTP and Presentation</h2><p>Adobe’s Creative Cloud gives us a look at real-world single- and multi-threaded performance. As such, it's more interesting to us than synthetic benchmarks for productivity testing.</p><p>After Effects CC is the classic example of a workload that prizes parallelism, so core count trumps clock rates.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SoBpUoXxtacbG79KEdhczP.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cpfETTHAGXUYJfWY8i9g9g.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4JqdbQMPkahW2oPXMjfn89.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BedLt4fzW5kfqtCBvYLMym.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>As long as some cores go underutilized, though, Coffee Lake usually wins thanks to its higher frequencies.</p><p>Strangely, under InDesign CC, the Core i5-8400 repeatedly falls behind Intel's Core i5-7400. The same happens when we test the K-series SKUs. This is likely a result of lower Turbo Boost frequencies, handing the advantage over to Kaby Lake's higher base clock rates.</p><h2 id="encoding-and-multimedia">Encoding and Multimedia</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BRshk2p2hCusGxyJK5kBuc.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BRshk2p2hCusGxyJK5kBuc.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BRshk2p2hCusGxyJK5kBuc.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The new Core i5-8400 keeps up with other processors in its class. However, the pricier Ryzen 5 1600X takes the lead once we overclock it.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/w5pxJR3EbnRNResogmrarW.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/w5pxJR3EbnRNResogmrarW.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/w5pxJR3EbnRNResogmrarW.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Taxing high-quality settings allow AMD to close the gap, and Ryzen 5 1600X now beats the Core i5-8400 in stock form. Again, though, it's also more expensive. The difference, of course, is that AMD gives you freedom to overclock. A tuned 1600X better-justifies the price premium.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="2d-amp-3d-workstation-performance">2D & 3D Workstation Performance</h2><h2 id="2d-performance">2D Performance</h2><p>Our GDI/GDI+ tests are used to test two different output methods that can be found in older applications and printing tasks. Today, they (or at least a modified version of them) are commonly used to display the graphical user interface). Theses are also great benchmarks for direct device write throughput and memory performance when handling gigantic device-independent bitmap files.</p><h2 id="synthetic-2d-benchmarks">Synthetic 2D Benchmarks</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8kzdVG4nBHtEkKDv2yj7c9.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8kzdVG4nBHtEkKDv2yj7c9.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8kzdVG4nBHtEkKDv2yj7c9.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>We take a look at direct device write throughput first. The graphics driver makes heavy use of CPU cycles for this task, but doesn’t spawn many threads. As a result, high clock rates and IPC throughput are favored, both of which are strengths of Intel's Coffee Lake design. </p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KtDFNutB4c4EdkuPtxwGMX.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KtDFNutB4c4EdkuPtxwGMX.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KtDFNutB4c4EdkuPtxwGMX.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>We up the ante by introducing memory to the mix. This is done with the help of the only remaining 2D hardware function: generating the graphics output in memory and then copying it to the output device all at once. The benchmark’s the same as before. We just plot a bitmap in memory, as opposed to sending the information directly to the monitor. This pushes the CPUs, since they’re no longer platform-bound.</p><p>The results prove interesting: frequency still rules, but AMD is more competitive. An overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X takes the lead over Core i5-8400, and the -7600K beats Intel's -8600K.</p><h2 id="autocad-2016-2d">AutoCAD 2016 (2D)</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gNUkUJuWmvQ8XxWTDvFHuN.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gNUkUJuWmvQ8XxWTDvFHuN.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gNUkUJuWmvQ8XxWTDvFHuN.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Even though AutoCAD does use DirectX, ultimately it just duplicates every single draw function in software. The software d<span class="notranslate">oesn't scale well over additional cores though, so IPC throughput is usually more important. That makes Core i5-8400's lead over the -7400 more impressive, showing just much higher Turbo Boost frequencies in lightly threaded workloads can improve performance. <br/></span></p><h2 id="3d-performance">3D Performance</h2><p>Most professional development applications have been optimized and compiled with Intel CPUs in mind. This is reflected in their performance numbers. Still, we include them in order to motivate developers to focus their efforts on AMD’s Ryzen processors as well. This would give users more than one choice. The same goes for an emphasis on multi-core processors, at least where that’s feasible and makes sense.</p><h2 id="autocad-2016-3d">AutoCAD 2016 (3D)</h2><p>Clock rate trumps core count. Intel’s Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake land fairly close to each other, with clock rate determining the winner. AutoCAD’s performance turns out to be close to that of older games, since it uses DirectX and isn’t really optimized to take advantage of multiple cores.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Amqxs8EWaZ2hPj8JLZ9y9J.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Amqxs8EWaZ2hPj8JLZ9y9J.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Amqxs8EWaZ2hPj8JLZ9y9J.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Performance scales enormously with frequency because the graphics card finally gets used properly.</p><h2 id="cinebench-r15-opengl">Cinebench R15 OpenGL</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3a3CpkXp9v9N4QHAJizVbU.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3a3CpkXp9v9N4QHAJizVbU.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3a3CpkXp9v9N4QHAJizVbU.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Frequency is (almost) everything in the Cinebench R15 OpenGL benchmark. Intel's Core i5-8400 is on similar footing with the older four-core Core i5-7600K.</p><h2 id="solidworks-2015">SolidWorks 2015</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xkvav7Cif2S9ZcMSQkERCj.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xkvav7Cif2S9ZcMSQkERCj.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xkvav7Cif2S9ZcMSQkERCj.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>SolidWorks 2015 also emphasizes clock rate, and it typically doesn't utilize more than four cores.</p><h2 id="creo-3-0">Creo 3.0 </h2><h2 id="4"></h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vEvJNgtUvX2Eixh6XJ2KxM.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vEvJNgtUvX2Eixh6XJ2KxM.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vEvJNgtUvX2Eixh6XJ2KxM.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Creo 3.0 paints the same picture: lots of cores don't improve performance when it comes to drafting using real-time 3D graphics output. The Core i5-8400 continues to beat the previous-generation -7600K, wrecking Intel's Core i5-7400 in the process.</p><h2 id="blender-and-3ds-max-real-time-3d-preview">Blender and 3ds Max (Real-Time 3D Preview)</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VZyB4cGk3Cf9YJHT9P5pCB.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VZyB4cGk3Cf9YJHT9P5pCB.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VZyB4cGk3Cf9YJHT9P5pCB.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The Blender and 3ds Max real-time 3D previews yield similar results. Mainly, frequency is everything.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2woddEvj3Whgp34SqFaGjE.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2woddEvj3Whgp34SqFaGjE.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2woddEvj3Whgp34SqFaGjE.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The 3ds Max results aren’t based on time to completion. Rather, this benchmark generates a composite index based on CPU performance during a set time period.</p><h2 id="catia-v6-r2012">Catia V6 R2012</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5yyggfpoqzC59j7xBwUQkm.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5yyggfpoqzC59j7xBwUQkm.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5yyggfpoqzC59j7xBwUQkm.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>This is one of the graphics benchmarks that has been optimized time and again (it’s part of the free SPECviewperf 12 suite). However, it still provides a fairly good measure of CPU performance, with an emphasis on clock rate.</p><h2 id="maya-2013">Maya 2013</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gCNhoy9TXEoNunnHKiccFB.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gCNhoy9TXEoNunnHKiccFB.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gCNhoy9TXEoNunnHKiccFB.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>At the risk of beating a dead horse, our chart paints a picture we've seen several times already. The real-time 3D output numbers don’t tell the entire story, though, as we'll see during final rendering.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="cpu-computing-amp-rendering-performance">CPU Computing & Rendering Performance</h2><h2 id="cpu-performance-workstation">CPU Performance: Workstation</h2><p>Many modern suites include modules that are based exclusively on computing and simulations. This means we need to go beyond just 3D workstation performance. However, software packages like SolidWorks don’t scale perfectly based on core/thread count. Consequently, even quad-core processors keep up if they run at high-enough frequencies and support SMT.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sEgQWNjj5jSkksVMSrsrWT.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sEgQWNjj5jSkksVMSrsrWT.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sEgQWNjj5jSkksVMSrsrWT.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>This is also seen in a direct comparison between the Core i5-7600K and Core i5-8400. The latter does not benefit much from its extra cores and larger aggregate cache.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vEvJNgtUvX2Eixh6XJ2KxM.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vEvJNgtUvX2Eixh6XJ2KxM.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vEvJNgtUvX2Eixh6XJ2KxM.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Frequency is all that counts in Creo 3.0. Compared to Intel's Core i5-7600K, the company's -8400 only derives small advantages from its two additional cores.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eHi2qHe5yoweBKCTcjKmUD.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eHi2qHe5yoweBKCTcjKmUD.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eHi2qHe5yoweBKCTcjKmUD.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Clock rate and core count both matter in 3ds Max 2015, so the Core i5-8400 lands slightly behind Intel's Core i5-8600K.</p><p>Though an overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X is close on Coffee Lake's heels, the -8400 costs less and facilitates higher performance.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7TXp54jJ4TCRswEqgyyQcY.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7TXp54jJ4TCRswEqgyyQcY.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7TXp54jJ4TCRswEqgyyQcY.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The CPU Composite benchmark makes extensive use of rendering, though, so AMD's Ryzen 5 appears much stronger. Now it's an overclocked 1500X going up against (and beating) Core i5-8400. A lack of Hyper-Threading support likely hurts Intel here.</p><h2 id="cpu-performance-photorealistic-rendering">CPU Performance: Photorealistic rendering</h2><p>Final rendering doesn’t require a CPU that's good at everything. Rather, this task wants efficiency and fast parallel computation.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sCGYHxDWQZPupbMGkHe8jU.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sCGYHxDWQZPupbMGkHe8jU.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/sCGYHxDWQZPupbMGkHe8jU.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>When it comes to pure rendering, the Core i5-8400 offers best-in-class performance. It is only challenged by AMD's pricier Ryzen 5 1600X.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5UpLmxbHq3euaziv8iwHPk.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5UpLmxbHq3euaziv8iwHPk.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5UpLmxbHq3euaziv8iwHPk.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The console variant of LuxRender confirms that none of Intel's Core i5s can compete with the Ryzen 5 1600X, stock or overclocked.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vdN7wwQ9ZthmdgKoZmRtsX.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vdN7wwQ9ZthmdgKoZmRtsX.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vdN7wwQ9ZthmdgKoZmRtsX.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Last, but not least, we take a look at Blender in several different workloads.</p><p>The first one, with a sample size of 200 pixels, confirms what we saw in the preceding benchmarks: Core i5-8400 trails the Ryzen 5 1600X by a big margin. In fact, a stock 1600X has little trouble beating the Core i5-8600K by more than 20%.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1113px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.93%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Fs2sz6xh8SjQMKQQzhXddc.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Fs2sz6xh8SjQMKQQzhXddc.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1113" height="834" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Fs2sz6xh8SjQMKQQzhXddc.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The results obtained from SPECwpc’s Blender loop look similar, even though this benchmark presents a somewhat different task consisting of more than just rendering. Ryzen 5 takes a big lead over Core i5.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/aG4QD8jnBoxeJkqQWX9vbM.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/aG4QD8jnBoxeJkqQWX9vbM.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/aG4QD8jnBoxeJkqQWX9vbM.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>The Core i5-8600K pushes upwards as the amount of pure rendering decreases. The rest of the results look similar, though, and Core i5-8400 suffers from its lack of Hyper-Threading.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/9rihLSWwK77VPzn5yvxxeY.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/9rihLSWwK77VPzn5yvxxeY.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/9rihLSWwK77VPzn5yvxxeY.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>This trend intensifies as our benchmark incorporates tasks other than photorealistic rendering. Core count isn't the sole determiner of performance; IPC throughput factors in as well. The Core i5-8600K even leads, followed by Intel's Core i5-8400.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Wu36zbKfUtbZib38RZo3if.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Wu36zbKfUtbZib38RZo3if.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Wu36zbKfUtbZib38RZo3if.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Ryzen 5 1600X jumps to the front once again. Core count matters, of course, but operating frequency is also a critical variable.</p><p>Intel’s Core i5-8400 offers acceptable performance in semi-professional applications, so it's more than just a gaming CPU. However, the Core i5 series lacks Hyper-Threading support, which is apparent in highly parallelized workloads. Those tasks tend to favor AMD's Ryzen chips.</p><p>Then again, this throws the potent six-core chips right where Intel wants them. If they fared <em>too </em>well, Core i5 would cannibalize sales of the pricier Core i7s.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="cooling-amp-temperature">Cooling & Temperature</h2><h2 id="power-consumption-in-detail">Power Consumption In Detail</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:1112px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.91%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZXwMVCRWnnJLtHBZBvvxXJ.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZXwMVCRWnnJLtHBZBvvxXJ.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="1112" height="833" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZXwMVCRWnnJLtHBZBvvxXJ.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>At idle, the differences in power consumption between Intel's CPUs are fairly marginal. All of them end up just about where we'd expect.</p><p>AMD's Ryzen processors draw significantly more power because their idle clock rates are higher.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:711px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.96%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2Ur5gBYdKd5TGScQu6Yyji.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2Ur5gBYdKd5TGScQu6Yyji.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="711" height="533" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/2Ur5gBYdKd5TGScQu6Yyji.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Core i5-8400's average power consumption in applications that combine 2D and 3D loads (like AutoCAD) is in line with the performance we observed.</p><p>Gaming paints a more balanced, but very similar picture.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:711px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.96%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XaWBQTmZq8HwoauPMk4YpV.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XaWBQTmZq8HwoauPMk4YpV.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="711" height="533" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XaWBQTmZq8HwoauPMk4YpV.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Intel's Core i5-8400 falls squarely within its TDP class.</p><p>The finishing order changes dramatically once we fire up an AVX-heavy stress test with all cores running at their top Turbo Boost bins.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:711px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.96%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/n35eYXxDf3Gnv6SbhjR7aA.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/n35eYXxDf3Gnv6SbhjR7aA.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="711" height="533" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/n35eYXxDf3Gnv6SbhjR7aA.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>This benchmark breaks Intel's rated TDP if the motherboard doesn't quickly rein in power consumption. Otherwise, Core i5-8400 hits values ​​well above its thermal design power, as illustrated in our chart.</p><h2 id="temperatures-2">Temperatures</h2><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:711px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:75.25%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/F5b8scdAiqELxv9zkmhxvg.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/F5b8scdAiqELxv9zkmhxvg.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="711" height="535" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/F5b8scdAiqELxv9zkmhxvg.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Core i5-8400 can easily be cooled by a heat sink/fan or compact closed-loop liquid cooler, despite Intel's continued use of thermal paste between the die and heat spreader.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:711px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:74.96%;"><img id="" name="" alt="" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mDDDXcZoZovx4ozSxa6Y9G.png" mos="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mDDDXcZoZovx4ozSxa6Y9G.png" align="" fullscreen="1" width="711" height="533" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull- expandable"><a href='https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/mDDDXcZoZovx4ozSxa6Y9G.png' target='_blank' class='expand-button icon-expand-image icon' ></a></p></div></div></figure><p>Pricier thermal solutions offer little advantage in cooling Core i5-8400. This is illustrated by the high delta between Intel's die and IHS, which results from that thermal paste the company uses.</p><p>The Core i5-8400 is relatively easy to cool, even with a standard heat sink and fan.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p><h2 id="final-analysis-8">Final Analysis</h2><p>Intel's Core i5-8400 is the cheapest modern six-core CPU, if you believe the company's recommended customer price. That's quite the feat, given AMD's competitive Ryzen 5 family. Although the -8400 ships with the Coffee Lake line-up's lowest base clock rate, that frequency is offset by more aggressive Turbo Boost bins. As such, lightly-threaded apps spin up nicely, while parallelized workloads benefit from six physical cores working together.</p><p>Given Core i5-8400's pedigree, most of us are probably here to learn more about the chip's gaming alacrity. We plotted its performance using average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99<sup>th</sup> percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we convert into an FPS measurement.</p><p>Newer titles are often optimized to extract more performance from CPUs with more than four cores. Our suite includes six games released in 2016 and five older titles that launched in 2014/2015. So, curious whether the latest Intel and AMD many-core processors contribute affect frame rates in a positive way, we're including a chart that breaks out the newer games on their own.</p><figure role="gallery"><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KHvzHtZpbfZsVNZkF4FKYZ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TVNiiAiUJgpAyTwgiZGTqb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8Z3dFMBXgDgPDv7Va9nKeZ.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TxVn7t7XdnVtTVGbXNUPod.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KkzfSFzcwJYGx3Mq2TpK7P.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Q4UMUWNCY7ohTPoPz5KXki.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/epf4bfGUpcpweR3aiQ95Yb.png" alt="" /></figure><figure><img src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/AaHonYsX77M3S4hg9eYC7e.png" alt="" /></figure></figure><p>CPUs below the $200 threshold are our key focus, and in its price class, Intel's Core i5-8400 provides the best gaming performance in spite of its locked multiplier. Even when we include a stock ~$215 Ryzen 5 1600, the Core i5-8400 holds its lead. It's only after shining a spotlight on the newer games using an overclocked 1600 that AMD carves out an advantage. Then again, processors in this price range are typically paired to mid-range graphics cards (rather than GeForce GTX 1080s), so you might not see much difference between the comparable AMD and Intel chips.</p><p>More important, Core i5-8400 wrecks the Core i5-7400. It's also faster than a stock Core i5-7600K. It can't quite match a Core i7-7700K, like the -8600K, but you're still getting a ton of value, given the similar price point as Core i5-7400.</p><p>Moving on to the application charts, Core i5-8400 distances itself from other processors in its price class, beating the previous-gen -7600K in threaded workloads as well. That's downright compelling progress from one generation to the next. Of course, stepping up ~$30 and overclocking a Ryzen 5 1600 should get you similar performance as a Ryzen 5 1600X. And in that case, you'll definitely outperform the Core i5 in heavily-threaded workloads. The compromise is lower performance in lightly-threaded apps and a higher price tag.</p><p>Intel's hasty launch means we're stuck pairing mainstream CPUs to higher-end Z370 motherboards until early next year. That's not a great option when you're dealing with a multiplier-locked CPU. Fortunately, the least-expensive Z370-based platforms sell for a reasonable $120. We're far less enthused about Coffee Lake supply issues causing prices on Core i5-8400 and other models to soar through the roof. Many retailers are selling the -8400 for $200 and higher. Hopefully, Intel can address this issue sooner than later. At least you get a bundled heat sink and fan as a consolation prize.</p><p>Overall, the Core i5-8400 offers incredible value to gamers on a budget, providing you can find the chip selling for Intel's recommended customer price. As supply stabilizes, you should be able to get your hands on an affordable hexa-core CPU that frees up funds for a faster graphics card than you would have purchased before. Balance is a beautiful thing to PC builders, and Coffee Lake delivers in spades.</p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html">Best CPUs</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html">Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy</a></strong></p><p><br/><strong>MORE: <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/topics/cpus">All CPUs Content</a></strong></p>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
            </channel>
</rss>