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

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

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

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

Ryzen 5 5500F and Ryzen 5 7500 Specifications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iPhone Duo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Arm AGI CPU deployments

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

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

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

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

AMD is no stranger to refreshing its older CPU families with new SKUs, especially since the consumer hardware market for new products is currently in a slump. Ryzen 7000 is a relatively new lineup for the company, but it seems like it might be the latest recipient of this strategy. Leaker Roland Quandt is reporting that a Ryzen 5 7500 non-F is coming soon with specs identical to the 7500F, but at double the price for some reason.

AMD Ryzen 5 7500 (no F, no X3D, no nothing) incoming.AM5 socket3,7 GHz, up to 5,0 GHz boost6C/12T38MB cache in total65W TDP~230 Euro

— @rquandt.bsky.social (@rquandt.bsky.social.bsky.social) 2026-09-05T13:08:32.503Z

As the post above clarifies, this is a bog-standard chip with no 3D V-Cache or anything extra. Actually, that's not entirely factual, as ditching the "F" moniker means the processor is gaining integrated graphics. However, given what we see on the Ryzen 5 7600, this iGPU will comprise only two small RDNA 2 CUs. That's enough for a display output and everyday tasks, but don't expect to be gaming on this thing.

The rest of the specs remain unchanged from the Ryzen 5 7500F. Its rumored non-F counterpart is also a six-core, twelve-thread CPU with a 3.7 GHz base clock and 5.0 GHz boost clock. You'll get 38MB of combined cache, likely a 32MB L3 + 6MB L2 split, along with a 65W TDP. All those match the 7500F, with the only glaring difference being the price — the Ryzen 5 7500 is supposed to somehow retail for 230 Euros, or $267 freedom units.

For context, the Ryzen 5 7500F launched at $179 three years ago but quickly came down in price and can be had for just $116 right now. Even in Germany, it costs 105 Euros at the moment, which translates to $122. Moreover, for the $250+ price rumored for the 7500 non-F, you can instead get the much more powerful Ryzen 5 9600X along with a whole B850 motherboard on Newegg as we speak. You can even find the 7600X3D for less than $250 on Amazon right now.

The only way one could try to justify this pricing is by arguing that the 7500 non-F comes with a box and cooler, unlike the 7500F, which is a tray-only package. Then again, these comparisons are based on current pricing, and we know how much of a mirage that can be during the component crisis. Price hikes for CPUs are not a rarity anymore, and since we don't have a rumored launch window for the 7500 non-F, it could coincide with one.

That's just speculation, though; take everything you just read with a grain of salt. The reason the rumored price is in Euros to begin with is that the leaker is based in Germany. We don't even know if this chip will receive a global launch.

AMD announced what it calls "the most powerful workstation in the world" at IFA 2026, dubbed the Threadripper Halo Station. The machine includes a Threadripper Pro 9995WX with 96 Zen 5 cores, dual liquid-cooled Instinct MI350P accelerators "with a path to four," 2TB of DDR5, and 288GB of HBM3E with up to 576GB supported. AMD claims the workstation is capable of running trillion-parameter models.

Taking all of the components together, the street price should come out to over $100,000 with just the core components: memory, CPU, and dual GPUs. Configured higher, and with supporting storage, power, and cooling, the workstation could very easily climb over $150,000.

It's essentially a server tray reconfigured into a tower, with an EPYC host replaced with a 96-core Threadripper. AMD didn't share many details about the machine outside of the specs, though it appears to be a system design that AMD's OEM partners will ultimately build and ship. AMD has yet to announce any partners supporting the machine.

The Threadripper Pro 9995WX at the heart of the machine is a 96-core, 192-thread Zen 5 chip that can boost up to 5.4 GHz. It ships with 384 MB of L3 cache and has a TDP of 350W. It's hard to find Threadripper Pro standalone chips in general, but the 9995WX clocks in at around $11,000 to $12,000.

The MI350P accelerators come with 128 CDNA 4 compute units built on TSMC N3. Each accelerator packs 144GB of HBM3E memory, giving the system 288GB of HBM3E. AMD says there's a "path to four," opening up the possibility of two more accelerators bringing 576GB of HBM3E to the system. You'll need plenty of power to feed the GPUs, as each accelerator is rated for up to 600W.

Although AMD says it can support up to four accelerators, the workstation shown off at IFA only has room for two, both of which are liquid-cooled, alongside the Threadripper host. AMD doesn't sell MI350P accelerators on their own in traditional consumer channels, but the estimated price is somewhere around $20,000 per accelerator.

At a system level, the Threadripper Halo Station includes 2TB of DDR5 memory, which is the maximum capacity supported across the eight-channel memory configuration of the Threadripper Pro 9995WX. AMD supports up to DDR5-6400 on the Threadripper, though it made no mention of speed during its IFA presentation. Regardless of speed, 2TB of DDR5 costs about $50,000 right now.

AMD has yet to set a price or release date for the Threadripper Halo Station, though we'll likely hear more about the design from AMD's partners in the near future. An extremely expensive workstation isn't out of the question. The Lenovo ThinkStation P8, for instance, which uses Threadripper Pro CPUs as a host, clocks in at $334,463 right now, maxed out with 2TB of DDR5 and dual Blackwell accelerators.

Intel's upcoming Core Ultra 400-series 'Nova Lake-S' CPU platform promises to be the company's biggest desktop launch in years, with range-topping processor offering up to 52 cores and gaming processors featuring up to 288 MB of bLLC cache, at least according to the rumor mill. Intel is reportedly on track to start mass production of its Nova Lake-S CPUs in the fourth quarter of 2026, according to a slide published by @wxnod. However, only the 28-core version will launch in the first quarter of 2027, with the 52-core model arriving later in the year, as we covered out of this year's Computex.

When initial leaks and roadmap disclosures about Intel's Nova Lake-S surfaced across 2025, the projected production schedule placed mass production in Q4 2026, so the new slide confirms that plan. Meanwhile, the actual CPU roll-out will be somewhat different to what Intel is used to as the company only intends to release unlocked 28-core SKU (or SKUs) in Q1 2027 and push the release of flagship models allegedly using two compute tiles featuring up to 52 cores to sometimes later in 2027. Some rumors pointing to a timeframe between late May and September, 2027. Normally, Intel launches flagship and unlocked models first. However, reports suggest the 52-core model will fit in a different class above a typical flagship, primarily targeting the HEDT crowd.

The slide revealed by the blogger does not look like an official Intel roadmap or an Intel presentation slide. A more plausible explanation is that the slide comes from a motherboard maker's presentation (or one of Intel's OEM partners), which compiled information the manufacturer got from Intel, which means that while it is most likely accurate, it is not final.

Intel's Core Ultra 400-series 'Nova Lake-S' CPUs will reportedly use up to 16 all-new high-performance Coyote Cove cores with 16MB of L2 cache, up to 32 energy-efficient Arctic Wolf cores, and up to four low-power Arctic Wolf cores, according to various leaks and the slide published by @wxnod. Even though each pair of Coyote Cove cores will reportedly share a 2 MB L2 cache, which will inevitably affect single-thread performance, Intel has an ace up its sleeve in the form of bLLC (big Last Level Cache), which will apparently scale to 288 MB to offer unbeatable performance in memory bandwidth-hungry applications, if media reports are correct. bLCC is apparently Intel's plan to fight back against AMD's X3D CPUs, which top the charts among the best CPUs for gaming.

The highest-end Core Ultra 9 400-series processors are expected to pack up to 52 cores using two compute tiles, whereas Core Ultra 7 400-series models are projected to feature up to 44 cores using two compute tiles, though exact configurations are currently unknown. Meanwhile, CPUs with two compute chiplets will reportedly consume up to 474W of power and will require motherboards featuring three 12V EPS power plugs.

On the I/O side of matters Intel's Nova Lake processors will reportedly feature a dual-channel DDR5 memory subsystem supporting up to DDR5-8000 modules as well as provide up to 24 PCIe 5.0 lanes directly from the CPU, including 16 lanes for graphics that can be split into two x8 or four x4 connections, plus two x4 links for SSDs.

Intel's new Core Ultra 400-series 'Nova Lake-S' processors for desktops will require Intel's new 900-series chipsets as well as will use an LGA1954 socket, according to leaks. Intel reportedly intends to keep LGA1954 around for a longer time than it usually does with its sockets, ensuring an upgrade path for years to come. We've already seen Z990 motherboards sporting the LGA1954 socket in the flesh.

Speaking of years to come, the slide lists Razor Lake and Hammer Lake processors that will succeed Nova Lake-S sometime after the fourth quarter of 2027. The slide does not provide technical details about either family, and we can only wonder whether Razor Lake corresponds to Core Ultra 500-series and Hammer Lake belongs to the Core Ultra 600-series, or both will be a part of one CPU family.

Onimusha: Way of the Sword closes out an incredible year for Capcom, following hot on the heels of both Resident Evil Requiem and Pragmata earlier in the year. Like those titles, the game is built on Capcom’s proprietary RE Engine, which has proven to be a remarkably scalable engine that can accommodate a wide range of hardware. We put some of the best CPUs for gaming through the game’s free benchmark to see how it scales on the CPU.

RE Engine is heavier on the GPU than the CPU, but still, we saw scaling across the 31 CPUs we tested, ranging from new releases like the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, reaching back to relics of the past decade like the Ryzen 7 2700X. Largely, performance falls as you’d expect, but there were a few odd results that showed up in our testing, namely for AMD’s newer 12-core Ryzen 9 models, which struggle to keep pace in this game.

Regardless, the game runs well on a wide range of hardware. Even with the RTX 5090 Founder’s Edition we tested with the Ryzen 7 2700X, completely binding performance to the CPU, we neared 90 FPS at 1080p with Ultra settings and no ray tracing.

This is a cursory look at Onimusha: Way of the Sword using the in-game benchmark available (we’ll go over how we tested a bit later). As usual, performance will vary from scene to scene, and we’ve yet to reach the latest areas of the game, which may have an adverse impact on performance (though we don’t expect one). We are looking at how CPUs scale in the game more so than the raw frame rate of any individual chip.

CPU scaling in Onimusha: Way of the Sword

The Onimusha: Way of the Sword benchmark is about five minutes long, primarily consisting of two in-engine cutscenes rendered in real time. The back half of the benchmark features gameplay, which shows considerably lower performance and taxes the CPU far more than the cutscenes. We chose to benchmark during the gameplay section, naturally.

We tested with the Ultra preset without ray tracing enabled. We didn’t use DLSS or FSR, either. As usual, we tested at 1080p with the RTX 5090 Founder’s Edition to isolate CPU performance as much as possible. We’ll go deeper into the specific system configuration for each platform later in this article if you’re interested. For each CPU, we ran the benchmark three times and took the median result, discarding and rerunning any outliers.

Out of the 31 CPUs we tested, the obvious ones to call out first are AMD’s 12-core Ryzen 9 offerings, because they perform poorly in this game. The Ryzen 9 7900X is actually 3% slower than the Ryzen 5 7600X, and similarly, the Ryzen 9 9900X is 1% behind the Ryzen 5 9600X. There’s clearly some issue with the 12-core parts, specifically, that doesn’t show up in the single-CCD Ryzen CPUs, nor the full, 16-core, dual-CCD models.

Great evidence of that is the Ryzen 9 7900X3D, which I only chose to run to see if 3D V-Cache would be able to overcome the 12-core penalty. It wasn’t able to. Every other X3D chip we tested sits at the top of the charts, while the Ryzen 9 7900X3D ended up in lockstep with the Ryzen 7 7700X. It’s possible this is a performance issue that either Capcom will address through a patch, or AMD through a firmware update. Regardless, the 12-core Ryzen 9 performance in this game is rough right now.

Elsewhere, things are great. X3D chips top the charts, though with less of a margin than we see in other titles, and virtually no margin in comparison to one another. The Ryzen 7 7700X3D is 7.2% ahead of the Core i9-14900K, Intel’s strongest CPU in this game, while the Ryzen 7 9800X3D extends that lead up to 11.3%. We didn’t have time to benchmark the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, though based on the negligible performance gap between the 7700X3D and 7800X3D, don’t expect any miracles.

The Ryzen 7 5800X3D doesn’t reach the heights of its DDR5-equipped siblings, falling 13.4% behind the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. It still puts on an excellent showing considering its peers, sitting among the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X. Even four years down the road, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D delivers performance on the level of current-gen flagships, at least in this title.

In Intel’s camp, the Core i9-14900K remains the fastest chip in Onimusha, at least when equipped with DDR5 (read our DDR4 vs DDR5 Raptor Lake comparison to see the difference in performance). Unfortunately for Team Blue, even the Core i7-14700K is 2.9% faster than Intel’s latest Core Ultra 7 270K Plus in this game. Intel doesn’t have support for Onimusha with iBOT, nor any RE Engine titles, suggesting that the performance you see here is the cap for Arrow Lake Refresh. Hopefully that changes with Intel’s impending Nova Lake.

Although Arrow Lake and AL Refresh don’t scale as high as the 14th-Gen offerings, performance is still solid competitively. The Core Ultra 5 245K is in lockstep with the Ryzen 5 9600X, as expected, while the lowly Core Ultra 5 225 is nipping at the heels of the Ryzen 5 7600X.

Flipping over to power, X3D chips remain well under 100W, short of the dual-CCD, dual-cache Ryzen 9 9950X3D2. Intel’s Raptor Lake Refresh chips unsurprisingly had the highest power usage out of our test pool, with the Core i7-14700K actually drawing a bit more power than the Core i9-14900K. Although we ran the test multiple times, we took the median result for average frame rate, which can sometimes push neighboring figures out of sorts when looking at other metrics. We don’t want to mix power results from one run and performance from another.

Looking directly at efficiency, the Ryzen 7 7700X3D was the most efficient chip in our testing, offering up just over 3.5 frames per watt consumed. The Ryzen 7 7800X3D barely offered a performance benefit over the 7700X3D, so its efficiency suffers as a result. Even the Ryzen 7 9800X3D falls below the 3-frames-per-watt mark.

Finally, clock speed doesn’t offer a lot of surprises. The more efficient CPUs like the Ryzen 7 7800X3D ran right up against their maximum boost clock on average, while flagships that push single-core speed to the limit like the Ryzen 9 9950X and Core i9-14900K fall below their maximum boosts. Clocks don’t translate into performance here, though looking at this chart combined with our averages provides some insight into how threaded Onimusha is.

It’s lightly threaded, like the vast majority of games, though there’s a clear bump in performance beyond four cores. Combined with lower maximum boost clocks on high-core-count flagships, all-core clocks are certainly more relevant here than single-core boosts. Then again, clock speed isn’t a major factor here, regardless.

How we tested Onimusha: Way of the Sword

We used our normal test bench used for CPU reviews, as well as our CPU benchmark hierarchy testing. The hardware doesn’t change, short of the CPU and, when necessary, the motherboard and memory. We also use a frozen OS image, meaning we’re running the same versions of the same software with all the same dependencies for each test pass.

The GPU we used is the RTX 5090 Founder’s Edition, as our goal when looking at CPU scaling is to isolate the CPU’s performance as much as reasonably possible. Naturally, running a game at a low resolution like 720p and turning down all of the graphics options will put even more pressure on the CPU, but that pushes beyond isolating the performance of one component in a relatively realistic testing environment.

Intel LGA 1851 (Arrow Lake and Refresh)

Although the hardware is consistent, there are BIOS tweaks we make depending on the platform. As a broad rule, anything we enable that improves performance is covered under warranty. If performance-enhancing features void the warranty, we leave them disabled. That includes AMD’s Precision Boost Overdrive and Intel’s Extreme power profile. We also don’t enable any motherboard-specific performance enhancements, such as tweaked XMP/EXPO profiles or X3D enhancements.

For this test pool, there are some features still covered by the warranty that improve performance. In Intel’s camp, we tested with Core Ultra 200S Boost enabled on all supported Arrow Lake CPUs (the 225 doesn’t support the feature). Similarly, the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X run at a 65W TDP out of the box, but an optional, warrantied 105W TDP mode is available. We tested with that mode enabled.

We also disabled Virtualization-Based Security (VBS), as it can adversely affect gaming performance.

Intel notified its employees last week that it would no longer title its top scientists, researchers, and developers as 'Fellows,' but will call them 'distinguished engineers,' a change that will not affect their compensation but which means a lot more than a simple formality. The new designation reflects the company's new 'standard of technical leadership' that combines deep expertise with strategic vision and 'measurable tactical progress,' reports OregonLive.

Under the new hierarchy, Fellows become Distinguished Engineers, while Senior Fellows become Senior Distinguished Engineers. Intel CTO Pushkar Ranade told employees that the move represents more than a simple renaming and establishes a new standard for technical leadership.

"The future of Intel will be determined by leaders who combine deep domain expertise with outstanding problem-solving ability, creative innovation with disciplined execution, and an expansive and strategic vision with measurable tactical progress," the Intel CTO reportedly wrote.

Interestingly, despite the fact that at least a dozen semiconductor companies — including AMD, ASML, Applied Materials, Arm, Broadcom, IBM, Nvidia, Micron, Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, and TSMC — have Fellows, Ranade told Intel employees that the new titles are more consistent with terminology used elsewhere in the technology industry. While Apple, Google, IBM, and Microsoft have Distinguished Engineers, at Google, IBM, and Microsoft, Fellows are above Distinguished Engineers.

Intel established the Fellow title in 1980 to recognize employees with a sustained record of exceptional technical accomplishments. The designation had deliberately academic roots because scientific societies and then engineering organizations have long used 'Fellow' for distinguished members, for example, the Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) or IEEE Fellow. So, by the time semiconductor companies, such as IBM, TI, or Intel, were developing formal technical career ladders, Fellow already carried a very specific implication: an engineer recognized by their peers as one of the leading authorities in the field.

Across semiconductor companies, the Fellow rank typically carries compensation, resources, and influence equivalent to a vice president (VP) or senior vice president (SVP), so that top architects and device physicists can shape company strategy without moving into people management (yet, Fellows did not work alone for obvious reasons). It is unclear whether Distinguished Engineers will now have similar resources and influence as Intel's VPs and SVPs that report to the CEO. Furthermore, at Intel, the Fellow (or senior Fellow) title reflected Intel's position as a semiconductor research powerhouse as well as its emphasis on long-term technology development.

The most notable people to hold the Intel Fellow rank title include distinguished specialists in microprocessor architecture, process scaling, high-speed interconnects, and silicon physics, including Marcian 'Ted' Hoff (the inventor of the Intel 4004 processor), Justin Rattner (for his work on massively parallel supercomputers), Mark Bohr (for leading Intel process technology development and fundamental work on things like strained silicon, hafnium, high-K metal gate, FinFET, etc.), Yan Borodovsky (for leading development and adoption of optical lithography extensions, immersion 193nm ArF lithography, and multi-patterning, just to name a few), and Ajay Bhatt (for leading development of USB, AGP, and PCIe). Perhaps the most unexpected Intel Fellow is Boris Babayan, who is primarily known as the father of Soviet supercomputing and the creator of the Elbrus VLIW CPU architecture. He became an Intel Fellow focused on optimizing binary translation and advanced compilers in November 2004, months after joining Intel.

All in all, Fellows historically had a very specific organizational and status value at Intel, as in many cases they have been the key people to solve Intel's strategic and tactical technical challenges while not being in a formal management role. From now on, Intel wants its Distinguished Engineers to be accountable for business decisions and essentially become managers.

The biggest question about renaming Fellows to Distinguished Engineers is whether this is done in a bid to further flatten the organization (after all, Intel got rid of 250 VPs out of 450, according to Intel's CFO), or is it a deliberate move away from the old research lab model, where Fellow signified scientific stature and long-horizon research, toward engineers whose status depends on products, execution and measurable business impact. For now, we do not have any answers to this question.

Fujitsu gave us a detailed look at its 144-core Monaka server CPU at Hot Chips 2026 on August 24, confirming for the first time that the Arm chip runs dual 256-bit SVE2 vector units, down from the 512-bit SVE in its A64FX predecessor, and that its entire last-level cache sits on a separate 5nm die beneath the 2nm compute die.

Ryohei Okazaki, lead architect of Fujitsu's processor development team, presented the design as "a made-in-Japan CPU, specifically engineered for AI performance and power efficiency," built for what the company calls green AI data centers and subsidized by Japan's New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization. The chip ships in two SKUs: a 350W air-cooled part at 2.1 GHz base and a 500W liquid-cooled part at 2.9 GHz base, with evaluation samples available now and volume production in 2027.

Three dies, one stack

Monaka splits into three tiers of silicon: a 2nm core die on TSMC N2P, a 5nm SRAM die on TSMC N5 that holds the whole last-level cache, and a 5nm IO die. The core die stacks face-to-face on top of the SRAM die through hybrid bonding, sitting on the cooling side because it runs hottest, while the IO die connects to the SRAM die across a silicon interposer. Fujitsu keeps 2nm silicon under 30% of total die area, a split Okazaki said lets Fujitsu "accelerate the time to market for our 2-nanometer-based chip" by pushing everything that shrinks poorly onto the 5nm SRAM and IO dies.

Putting the full last-level cache on a distinct stacked die separates Monaka from AMD's 3D V-Cache, which bonds extra SRAM on top of a compute die that already carries its own L3, and lines it up closer to Intel's Clearwater Forest, where local cache sits in a base tile with compute stacked above. Fujitsu also moved the low-dropout voltage regulators onto the 5nm SRAM die because analog circuits scale poorly at 2nm, and placed them directly beneath the core's floating-point units to feed per-core dynamic voltage and frequency scaling.

Dr. Ian Cutress of More Than Moore asked whether Fujitsu was "doing anything special to minimize core-to-core latency" given that the core dies sit on opposite sides of the package and traffic routes through the IO die and back. Fujitsu pointed to the face-to-face hybrid bonding between the core and SRAM dies but declined to disclose latency figures.

From 512-bit vectors to 256

Chester Lam of Chips and Cheese asked why Fujitsu narrowed the vector datapath from the 512-bit SVE in A64FX to 256-bit SVE2 in Monaka. Okazaki said the chip is built "for [the] data center" and that Fujitsu wanted to "minimize the core size" for the best cost and performance, with the narrower units also cutting SIMD width for general-purpose code.

A64FX, the 7nm CPU that powered the Fugaku supercomputer and became the first chip to implement Arm SVE, paired its 512-bit vectors with on-package HBM2 for memory-bound HPC. Monaka drops HBM for 12-channel DDR5 at 8000 MT/s and runs two 256-bit SVE2 units per core, each aligned to a 256-bit load/store unit, with FP8 and INT8 matrix support added for inference.

The core carries mainframe-class reliability features Fujitsu inherited from its own processor line: ECC or duplication on the L1 and L2 caches, parity checks on execution units and registers, and a hardware instruction-retry mechanism to recover from transient errors. It also runs a three-level TAGE branch predictor and six ALUs for general-purpose throughput, on a core that Fujitsu measures at roughly 1.47 mm².

Performance estimates and rivals

Fujitsu estimates the 350W SKU at 4,355 GFLOPS in DGEMM and 69.7 TOPS in INT8, and the 500W SKU at 6,013 GFLOPS and 96.2 TOPS, with both parts rated around 500 GB/s in STREAM Triad. The company claims up to two-times AI performance and over 50% TCO reduction against unnamed comparisons, and credits ultra-low-voltage operation, running the core around 30% below nominal voltage for roughly half the power, for holding 144 cores inside the 350W envelope. Okazaki described the voltage technique as delivering "energy saving comparable to moving one generation beyond the 2 nanometers," achieved with custom SRAM and a proprietary CAD flow tuned for non-standard low-voltage operation.

By 2027, Monaka's 144 cores will land in the middle of the Arm server field rather than at the top of it. AWS's Graviton5 reaches 192 Neoverse V3 cores on a single 3nm die, Ampere's roadmap runs to 512 cores in AmpereOne Aurora, and Microsoft's Cobalt 200 packs 132 cores with its own per-core DVFS. Monaka's separation from that group rests on the cache-on-die stack and 12-channel DDR5 bandwidth rather than core count, and its 256-bit SVE2 width matches SiPearl's Rhea1 while exceeding the 128-bit SVE2 common to hyperscaler Arm cores.

NEDO subsidizes Monaka under a green data center program targeting 40% energy savings by 2030, yet the chip's 2nm and 5nm dies come from TSMC rather than a domestic fab. That gap between a made-in-Japan design and Taiwanese manufacturing sits awkwardly against the sovereignty that Fujitsu and RIKEN are seemingly keen to attach to the program.

Japan has committed more than 2 trillion yen to Rapidus for 2nm production in Hokkaido by 2027, and roughly 1.2 trillion yen to TSMC's Kumamoto fabs, and NEDO has separately backed a dedicated 1.4nm AI chip from Fujitsu and IBM Japan to be built entirely in Japan by Rapidus. Monaka predates that domestic capacity, however.

Monaka's successor is already assigned to a flagship machine. FugakuNEXT, the roughly $750 million RIKEN system announced in August last year with Fujitsu and Nvidia, will pair a 1.4nm-class Monaka-X that adds Arm SME2 with Nvidia GPUs linked over NVLink Fusion, the interconnect Nvidia opened to third-party CPUs in 2025. RIKEN targets more than 600 FP8 exaFLOPS within a 40MW envelope and roughly 100 times Fugaku's application performance, with operation around 2030. FugakuNEXT is Japan's first flagship supercomputer to place GPUs at its core, a departure from the CPU-only A64FX design of the original Fugaku.

Fujitsu has firmed up rather than changed the Monaka plan across three years of disclosures, with the core count, node split, and an anticipated launch date of 2027 remaining unchanged since 2023. Fujitsu didn't disclose pricing, and its DGEMM, STREAM, and INT8 figures remain estimates until independent testing at the 2027 launch

Full Fujitsu Monaka Hot Chips 2026 presentation

When Arm introduced its AGI data center CPU, which it will ship starting in late 2026, the company revealed key specifications but omitted many technical details. It said nothing about the processor's performance at the time. This week at Hot Chips 2026, Arm filled many gaps about the architecture and design decisions of its AGI CPU, disclosed that the processor works as planned, published planned configurations, and said it is on track for commercial shipments in the coming months.

Many cores

Arm's AGI is a dual-chiplet data center processor that packs 64, 128, or 136 Neoverse V3 cores (10-wide frontend and decode, 10-wide dispatch, 8-wide retire, 384+ entry OoO window) running at 2.80 GHz – 3.70 GHz. The processor is equipped with two 128-bit vector engines and 2MB of L2 cache per core, as well as up to 272 MB of system-level cache. Each CSS V3 chiplet consists of 50 billion transistors, contains 70 V3 cores, a six-channel memory subsystem supporting up to 3 TB of DDR5-8800 memory (6 TB per socket), and connects to its sibling using a 16 ×16 UCIe macros running at 32 GT/s with an aggregated bandwidth of 2 TB/s. On the I/O side of things, Arm's AGI has 96 PCIe 6.0 lanes utilizing the CXL 3.0 protocol on top for memory expansion, four PCIe 4.0 lanes, and I3C, I2C, and SPI interfaces. The CPU has a thermal design power of 300W.

At a high level, Arm's AGI does not look too different from CPUs from AMD, Intel, and Nvidia: it has many cores, plenty of cache, a high-performance memory subsystem, and dozens of PCIe lanes with CXL. However, several design choices from Arm buck some usual trends from other CPU makers.

Unorthodox design choices

The first thing that catches the eye is that Arm chose two largely self-contained SoC chiplets made on TSMC's N3P technology, which places both compute and I/O on the same die, and decided not to go with the usual heterogeneous multi-chiplet designs used by AMD, Intel, and now Nvidia, all of whom separate compute and I/O chiplets.

While AMD, Intel, and Nvidia use their heterogeneous multi-chiplet approach to pack more compute capability and deliver more performance, it looks like Arm's decision is fundamental to its combination of enormous memory bandwidth (844.8 GB/s when used with DDR5-8800, though such memory still has to make it to the market) and <100-ns DRAM latency. As AGI's memory traffic does not have to travel to another chiplet with a memory controller, it can reduce latency and potentially achieve higher performance in latency-sensitive workloads, including some single-threaded and agentic AI workloads.

Each chiplet uses an 8 × 9 CMN-S3 mesh (a low-latency interconnect) to connect CPU cores, memory, I/O, and accelerators. It incorporates a 128 MB distributed system-level cache, snoop filtering, and hierarchical caching through HN-S, or Super Home Node, a piece of logic that acts as a distribution center for handling traffic and data through the chip to speed up communication.

The important point is that CMN-S3 is not just an internal CPU mesh, as Arm designed the coherent system to extend outside of the die to extend coherency beyond the die and the socket. The approach is conceptually closer to Intel's distributed Xeon 2D mesh (though Xeon is moving on to a 3D mesh with Diamond Rapids) than AMD's EPYC architecture, where compute chiplets connect to a central I/O die that hosts the memory controllers and Infinity Fabric infrastructure. This essentially proves that Arm appears to have optimized AGI's chiplets for memory locality, bandwidth, and latency, but not exactly for compute performance density, modularity, yield, and ease of manufacturing like AMD.

Arm revealed at Hot Chips that each chiplet physically contains 70 Neoverse V3 cores, but the complete product exposes up to 136 cores, which means that four cores are redundant and are incorporated to increase yield.

Capable memory subsystem

Arm positions its AGI CPU primarily for AI servers and agentic AI systems, in particular. Since memory performance plays a big role in many agentic AI workloads, Arm implemented a capable coherent NUMA memory subsystem. The NUMA subsystem features two six-channel DDR5 subsystems located in each chiplet, which can potentially provide a total of up to 845 GB/s of bandwidth. If a core needs memory attached to the other chiplet, the request can cross the coherent die-to-die connection, though at a cost of latency. Arm's goal is to provide as much bandwidth per core as possible, which is why AGI supports everything up to DDR5-8800.

The DDR5 controllers within Arm's AGI CPU are quite sophisticated too. They support numerous features to maximize performance in real-world workloads, including fully out-of-order command scheduling, bank-parallelism-optimized address mapping, and programmable page policies to improve DRAM utilization and extract more effective bandwidth from the memory subsystem, while anti-starvation mechanisms help maintain predictable service under heavy load.

In addition, Arm also implements memory-bandwidth limiting and monitoring through Memory Partitioning and Monitoring (MPAM) along with QoS-based traffic prioritization and congestion feedback to manage contention when multiple cores and I/O devices compete for DRAM bandwidth. The memory subsystem also features extensive RAS capabilities, including single-DRAM-device failure correction with Chipkill-class protection, memory scrubbing, row-hammer mitigation, repair support, error injection, and RAS error logging.

Capable memory subsystem

Now that Arm has shared so many details about its AGI CPU, the lingering question is the performance of the processor itself. Arm still has not published conventional benchmark results such as SPEC CPU2017, SPECrate, integer/floating-point throughput, or direct socket-to-socket comparisons against current AMD EPYC or Intel Xeon processors in real-world server workloads.

The main performance claim that Arm has made is '2X performance per rack versus the latest x86 platforms' based on estimates, which is not even remotely a detailed performance claim. Perhaps, following Nvidia's lead, Arm prefers to compare the per-rack performance of its CPUs, as they are made to work in racks. However, this is clearly an unconventional way to evaluate processors.

Intel's Wildcat Lake is unassuming, launching with the message that it was a cutting-edge alternative to the MacBook Neo with Intel's latest node and some trimmings around the edges. Although Wildcat Lake is, indeed, a budget part with major concessions to reach a market increasingly pushed to the side by powerful PC hardware, it also comes with a major innovation: UCIe.

The Universal Chiplet Interconnect Express (UCIe) specification first debuted in 2022, coincidentally around the time that planning around Wildcat Lake began. Both AMD and Intel have rallied behind UCIe as an open interconnect communications standard, though they've primarily relied on their own chiplet communication technology like AMD's Infinity Fabric. In Wildcat Lake, Intel leveraged UCIe to reduce cost. Further, it was a key technology that allowed Wildcat Lake to exist in the first place.

Opening the Hot Chips 2026 presentation, Intel's Lance Hacking, lead engineer on Wildcat Lake, said the company had the choice between a monolithic design or a basic, low-cost Multi-Chip Package (MCP). Intel has Foveros for advanced 2.5D and 3D packaging, but for a budget part like Wildcat Lake, that wasn't an option.

Choosing to leverage UCIe over an MCP design shaped the Wildcat Lake we have today, setting a roadmap for where Intel could cut compute to save cost and in areas where it would need to optimize to fit the necessary communication channels for the two chiplets.

UCIe integration in Intel Wildcat Lake

As Hacking explained during his presentation, budget parts usually involve an N-1 design. You leverage older IP, trim around the edges to improve the economics of yields, and repackage it as a mainstream part. Wildcat Lake is different in that regard. It's taking Intel's latest, most advanced, and most expensive IP for compute and applying it to the budget domain.

With 18A at the center of the compute and ISMC's N6 handling the I/O die, Intel decided to make an MCP, which comes with some considerations. Advanced packaging allows designers to spend less die space on interconnects and use less power. With UCIe, Wildcat Lake's interconnect is 70% larger than that on Panther Lake, and even then, Intel says the change was worth it from a cost perspective.

Outside of space, power was the primary concern with using UCIe. Battery life, especially for a budget part meant to handle lighter workloads, is extremely important, and UCIe brings increased power demands. UCIe die-to-die is packetized, which led to a challenging design point, particularly around the display.

Intel says that idle systems without panel self-refresh were the "biggest power concern," as display signals need to cross the UCIe connection. To address the issue, Intel says it built a buffer to hold panel refreshes while the system was idle. This buffer is before the UCIe link, and it serves as an additional output buffer alongside the typical display buffer between the memory controller and display engine.

Without a base die for interconnect communication, UCIe also represents a large increase in die area. Intel trimmed a lot on both the compute and I/O dies to account for UCIe.

On the compute die, Intel trimmed down everything. Four Xe cores dropped to two, and without a dedicated ray tracing accelerator, the NPU went from three tiles to a single tile, and the memory subsystem was downgraded to a 64-bit bus, with lower maximum speeds and lower capacity. As mentioned, there were a lot of cuts in the display engine, which was a primary concern for die space and power.

Intel uses three display pipelines instead of four, opting for HBR3 as opposed to the massive bandwidth offered with UHBR20. That still provides 4K60 and can drive three external displays, which is plenty for a device in the class that Wildcat Lake is targeting. Trimming down the compute die allowed Intel to claw back 38% of its die space.

On the I/O die, Intel claimed back 15% die area by removing the camera PHY, reducing PCIe and USB support, and slimming down the audio engine. The camera was completely removed, placing the onus on OEMs to integrate their own controllers.

UCIe 3.0 is capable of up to a data rate of 64 GT/s, but Intel capped the transfer rate in Wildcat Lake at 8 GT/s. That still allowed Wildcat Lake to support mainstream PCIe 4 SSDs and 4K60 external displays, but running at a lower data rate reduces bit-rate errors and therefore allowed Intel to remove some bit-correction systems.

Reducing the cost of Wildcat Lake

Cutting down the compute and I/O dies saves money, but there are several other considerations when talking about the cost of a mobile SoC like Wildcat Lake. The economics need to work in the final product, which Intel touched on in its Hot Chips presentation, both from the perspective of the total bill of materials for OEMs and the yield/loss rate.

The big factor in cost savings was the elimination of the base die, which not only reduces raw material costs but also comes with the yield upside, without advanced packaging.

As usual, Intel bins Wildcat Lake into different SKUs, though it was careful to only attempt recovery where it could. For instance, it could package a single working P-core as a Core 3 304 instead of a 320. However, it didn't attempt recovery in areas that would compromise key design points of Wildcat Lake.

For instance, it didn't attempt recovery on LPE clusters and I/O, as they're critical components of Wildcat Lake. The goal, according to Intel, was to create a stack that customers actually wanted to buy while trying to maximize yields where possible.

Intel also considered the full bill of materials for Wildcat Lake. Intel integrated Wi-Fi 7 and a USB PD controller, cutting costs for OEMs to integrate their own controllers. Perhaps the biggest point of savings was in memory, using a much slimmer bus and a 6-layer PCB as opposed to eight layers. Extending off the chart above is Project Firefly, Intel's initiative to leverage the mobile supply chain for budget laptops.

Interestingly, Intel also included an area that led to higher cost but met the design goals of Wildcat Lake, that being a dedicated power rail for the LPE cluster. The "low-power island," as Intel calls its LPE cluster, is critical to Wildcat Lake considering every SKU comes with only one or two P-cores. That dedicated power rail allows the vast majority of lightweight workloads to run on the LPE cluster and earn back battery life.

Wildcat Lake is one of the more interesting consumer launches we've seen in the past year. There's the MacBook Neo and Snapdragon C competing in the same space, but both use mobile SoCs in the traditional N-1 design point for budget platforms. Wildcat Lake is different, based on Intel's latest node, and leveraging newer open standards to achieve a lower price. That's why it won a Tom's Hardware innovation award for 2026, after all.

Full Intel Wildcat Lake Hot Chips 2026 presentation

Apple has today unveiled its next-generation M6 Apple silicon chip, as well as a powerful M5 Ultra. The new chips will debut in new versions of its Mac Mini and Mac Studio, respectively, available to pre-order from today.

The M6 is Apple's first chip on a 2-nanometer process, utilizing a 12-core CPU with two super cores, four performance cores, and six efficiency cores. The chip also features a 12-core GPU and a 12-core GPU featuring neural accelerators, alongside a "Dual 16-core Neural Engine." The top version of the chip has 170GB/s of memory bandwidth.

That dual 16-core neural engine means that there are indeed two neural engines. There's a connection between the engines, allowing them to run one model quickly across both, or two separate models independently.

The M5 Ultra is Apple's first chip using its UltraFusion technology to form a quad-die architecture (The M5 Max chips it is connecting both used two dies). The chip goes up to 36 cores on the CPU and up to 80 cores on the GPU, with 1.2TB/S of unified memory bandwidth, which Apple says is 50% higher than the M3 Ultra. Apple also claims the 36-core CPU with 12 super cores and 25 performance cores will offer "up to 1.25x higher single-threaded performance and up to 1.3x higher multithreaded performance than M3 Ultra."

The M5 Ultra has a 32-core neural engine, but this is different from the dual 16-core neural engine on the M6. Because the M5 Ultra uses a pair of M5 Max chips over UltraFusion, the 32 cores across the dies to run two models in parallel for increased performance.

Both M6 and M5 Ultra feature GPUs with neural accelerators and their fastest cores, marking a leap forward for Apple's graphics processors when it comes to AI.

Apple users who have been maxxing out previous versions of the Mac Mini will be capped at 32GB of memory on the Mac Mini with M6, like a choice the company made due to the component shortage that has been affecting the entire industry. If you want 64GB like the M4 Pro, you'll need the M5 Pro model. But the M5 Ultra in the Mac Studio won't have that problem, with Apple offering up to 512GB of unified memory on that chip.

M6 also features updates to hardware-accelerated ray tracing, dynamic caching, and the shader core, which the company claims will allow for faster rendering and higher frame rates in games.

Mac Mini and Mac Studio

The new Mac Mini and Mac Studio aren't seeing any design changes, though there are substantial internal changes. Both systems are available for pre-order today, but won't arrive to customers and in retail stores until September 22.

Besides the M6 version of the Mac Mini, there will also be versions with M5 Pro. Both models will be bumped to Wi-FI 7 and Bluetooth 6, as well as 2.5Gb Ethernet (up from 1Gb), with a 10Gb option available as an upgrade. The Mac Mini also supports genlock via USB-C, synchronizing displays and cameras to prevent video drift during broadcasts.

For those working with AI, Thunderbolt 5 on the M5 Pro Mac Mini will allow customers to run clusters for on-device models.

The Mac Mini with M6 will start at $899, while the M5 Pro option will begin at $1,699 (each drops $100 for education pricing). Given that the Mac Mini with M4 started at $599, it's seeing substantial price hikes here.

The Mac Studio will come with M5 Max or the new M5 Ultra chip, and Apple is positioning it for on-device AI. It will now offer up to six Thunderbolt 5 ports with support for as many as eight displays. Like the Mac Mini, it's also getting Wi-Fi 7 and Bluetooth 6 with Apple's N1 chip, which debuted in the iPhone 17 lineup. Like the Mac Mini, the Mac Studio also supports genlock for perfectly synced video.

The Mac Studio with M5 Max will start at $2,499 ($2,299 with an education discount), and the M4 Ultra model will start at an eye-watering $5,499 ($5,099 with an education discount).

Both systems will be compatible with macOS 27 Golden Gate, including Siri AI and refinements to the Liquid Glass design introduced in macOS 26 Tahoe.

Nvidia has spent the last several months providing key disclosures about its next-gen Vera CPU for agentic data centers, which it continued at Hot Chips 2026. Although we've already learned a lot about Vera, how it compares to AMD's next-gen Venice CPUs, and the inner workings of the Olympus core, Nvidia provided a bit more color at Hot Chips on spatial multithreading, the memory subsystem, and what types of workloads it's targeting with Vera.

As a quick refresher, Vera is the first CPU with a custom Nvidia core, following up on Grace, which used a stock Arm design. It's shipping as a single, 88-core SKU, and it has some key design differences compared to Nvidia's x86 competition, most notably a multi-threading implementation that Nvidia calls spatial multi-threading, an LPDDR5X memory subsystem, and a monolithic compute die rather than using compute chiplets.

Nvidia says it's designed Vera specifically for agentic AI workloads, a category that's still being defined in terms of performance benchmarking. Many CPU-intensive tasks serve as proxies for agentic workloads (i.e., code compilation), though measuring performance across a full agentic chain is complex and inconsistent. Nvidia, in its own slides (see the end of this article), calls agentic AI the "most complex computing workload in history," after all.

Nvidia provided an example of a headless browser to show the benefits of Vera, using optimized code to mimic how an agent would use a browser. Compared to the 96-core EPYC 9655P, Nvidia says Vera runs 24% faster as browser instances scale.

This slide is a good demonstration of the complexities in measuring traditional workloads and applying that performance to agentic workflows. Agents will often fetch websites for information, but there are several layers where agents can trim back compared to humans; in this case, agents can run through a browsing workflow 4.5x faster by cutting things like GUI rendering, fonts, media decoding, and more.

Another touchstone for agentic performance is code compilation, as agents seek out software to compile on the system. This might be the most direct benchmark of agentic AI performance with current workflows right now. Though, as previously mentioned, agentic chains are long, complex, and involve several different workloads.

Once again, compared to the 96-core EPYC 9655P, Nvidia claims Vera can compile the Linux kernel 22% faster with a native AArch64 target, and 14% faster when cross-compiling for x86.

Nvidia's big cores for agentic AI — another look at Olympus and how it fits into Vera

Nvidia reiterated the importance of the large cores inside Vera, including the large BPU, neural branch predictor, and 10-wide decode. Nvidia has previously disclosed the Olympus core architecture, which you can read about in our Vera deep dive. Broadly speaking, however, it's a wide core optimized for high single-core throughput.

One of the more interesting design points of Vera is spatial multi-threading, which Nvidia described in more detail during its Hot Chips 2026. In short, Nvidia separates core resources on two pipelines, though data and cache can move between threads as needed. To demonstrate the benefit, Nvidia shared the results from SPEC CPU 2017 intrate that you can see below.

This shows the "noisy neighbor" effect. Nvidia measured single-core performance and then measured the same workload with another thread active. Nvidia's data shows that Vera is less concerned with the neighboring thread, whereas a "traditional CPU" sees a larger slowdown. Nvidia didn't clarify which CPU it's comparing Vera to here, however.

Nvidia's slide does a good job illustrating, but it's worth noting the difference compared to traditional SMT nonetheless. With traditional SMT, resources are time-sliced between threads, leading to gaps between BP and decode, as illustrated in the slide. With spatial multithreading in Vera, threads are still fighting for resources within the core. However, spatial multithreading allows Nvidia to deal with the demand of neighboring threads in a deterministic way, leading to a more consistent downturn in per-core performance when the second thread is working.

Nvidia's second-gen Scalable Coherency Fabric (SCF) moves data across the die. Nvidia didn't provide any new disclosures around SCF at Hot Chips, but you can see how the fabric is laid out in the slide below. Centralized Coherency Switch Nodes (CSNs) connect the cores to pools of L3 cache totaling 164 MB and the broader memory subsystem.

At a system level, one of the more interesting choices Nvidia made was to use LPDDR5X as opposed to traditional RDIMMs, a choice that it was only able to make due to the serviceable SOCAMM2 design. Nvidia includes eight SOCAMM2 slots per Vera CPU on a board, offering up to 1.5 TB of capacity with 1.2 TB/s of bandwidth.

LPDDR5X can deliver transfer rates higher than DDR5 RDIMMs, at least compared to single-rank DIMMs. However, it seems the driving force behind LPDDR5X wasn't performance but rather power consumption. One of the pillars of Vera, according to Nvidia's Hot Chips presentation, was to deliver a CPU for power-limited data centers. Micron says its LPDDR5X consumes about a third of the power compared to a traditional RDIMM.

Nvidia demonstrated that point a little differently, using bandwidth per watt as a point of comparison between the LPDDR5X system in Vera and traditional RDIMMs. This illustration does the job, though it could be a bit misleading, measuring power draw against peak bandwidth.

Nvidia tells us that a fully loaded memory system with Vera consumes between 30W and 40W, with 1.5 TB at 9600 MT/s. Power demands for RDIMMs vary wildly depending on capacity, channels, and transfer rate, though power consumption can easily climb over 100W depending on the configuration.

Although Nvidia has deployed Grace in the data center — to the tune of "hundreds of thousands" of standalone servers, apparently — Vera represents Nvidia's first big push to gobble up market share in the expanding agentic CPU market. It's highly targeted, as evidenced by the fact that Nvidia is only delivering a single 88-core SKU, and it's already being put to use in large-scale deployments, with Nvidia announcing yesterday a deployment of Vera at SpaceXAI.

Nvidia has shared the slide above before, which it once again showed at Hot Chips 2026. It's normalizing per-core performance in SPEC CPU 2026 against the AMD EPYC 9755. The core differences explain the big disparity in numbers; in reality, Vera led in overall score by 3%. Regardless, this is the slide Nvidia is using to pitch Vera, claiming it offers a big improvement in the workloads that are most relevant for agentic AI.

The most formidable opponent for Vera isn't Turin, however. It's Venice, which AMD launched in June, and Diamond Rapids, which Intel detailed just moments after Nvidia left the stage. Vera has a lot of interesting talking points already, but it'll be interesting to watch how Nvidia scales (or doesn't scale) its data center CPU business over the next few generations. Perhaps we'll see the firm double down on these agentic workflows, or maybe concessions and product segmentation to appeal to hyperscalers. Time will tell.

Full Nvidia Vera Hot Chips 2026 presentation

After teasing the chips earlier this year, Intel has provided some details on its next-gen Xeon 7, codenamed Diamond Rapids, CPUs. Featuring up to 256 P-cores and 1.28 GB of last-level cache, the new range of CPUs is set to release in the data center in 2027. The range brings forth several advancements we've expected on Intel's roadmap, including the enhanced 18A-P process, UCIe interconnects, AVX 10.2, and Intel's new "fan-out" fabric.

Intel didn't detail the core architecture (known as Panther Cove) in Diamond Rapids during its Hot Chips 2026 presentation, so we'll likely have at least one more technical deep dive on Diamond Rapids before it arrives, and possibly more. Although there are still questions about Panther Cove, Intel shared a technical breakdown of how Diamond Rapids chips are built more broadly, including a look at the compute tiles and how they come together across the chip.

Intel calls the compute tiles Compute Building Blocks, or CBBs, and they hold the core chiplet stacked on top of the base tile that holds the LLC. Each core chiplet can hold up to 16 cores, and based on the scaled-up Diamond Rapids SoC, up to four of those chiplets can live in a CBB. Each chiplet connects to the base tile with a 3D Xbar. A full Diamond Rapids SoC includes four base tiles built on Intel 3-T, two fabric hub tiles built on Intel 3, and 16 core chiplets built on Intel 18A-P.

Bringing everything together are two advanced packaging techniques. Intel is once again using its own Foveros Direct 3D to bond the compute tiles to the base tiles, as seen with Xeon 6+ 'Clearwater Forest' CPUs. Intel is using UCIe-S to connect the fabric hub tiles to the cores via a copper connection. Notably, Intel isn't using its own Embedded Multi-die Interconnect Bridge (EMIB) that it's broadly deployed in past products.

Intel Xeon 7 'Diamond Rapids' compute chiplet

Diamond Rapids is built with four Compute Building Blocks, each of which includes four core chiplets that house 16 P-cores each. The cores have access to private L2 within each chiplet, and they share an L3 cache located on the base tile. The chiplets are connected to the base tile with a 3D crossbar, packaged with Foveros Direct 3D.

Within each CBB, there's 3D packaging, but Intel leverages 2D communication via a UCIe-S interconnect to connect the CBBs to two centralized fabric hubs, allowing the cores (and caches) to communicate with each other. Although there are two fabric hubs, each of the CBBs is connected to both fabric hubs, so communication routes are clear across the chip.

Compared to Granite Rapids, Intel has quite literally flipped the layout, centralizing memory and I/O while pushing the cores out to the edges of the chip. It's much closer to a layout we'd expect to see from AMD.

Thermal improvements will likely follow. With the highest-clocked and hottest components pushed out to the edges, there's much less concern for hot spots in the middle of the chip, as is the case with Granite Rapids-AP, where the cores are at the center.

Intel is using its latest enhanced 18A-P node for the compute die, which is said to increase performance by 9% compared to 18A at peak performance, or operate at 18% lower power with iso-performance. Intel announced in June that 18A-P had entered risk production.

Intel Xeon 7 'Diamond Rapids' fan-out fabric and memory, I/O subsystem

Diamond Rapids comes with 16-channel memory, supporting up to 8,000 MT/s with DDR5 and up to 12,800 MT/s with MRDIMMs. Although Intel bumped memory speeds with Xeon 6+ 'Clearwater Forest,' we're now seeing fast DDR5 support on a P-core Xeon, and with an expansion to 16 channels (Granite Rapids topped out at 12 channels).

Intel centralizes all of the hardware for memory and I/O communication in the middle of the chip across two tiles (the fabric hubs), and each CBB can communicate with both fabric hubs.

Double-clicking into the diagram at the top of this section, you can see the layout of the I/O system above. Across the chip, Intel supports 128 lanes of PCIe 6.0, CXL 3.0, UPI 3, or some combination thereof, courtesy of the flexible I/O subsystem. Intel also includes four PCIe 4.0 lanes (a total of eight per CPU) for platform use.

The I/O fabric also includes complexes for the various accelerators on-chip in Diamond Rapids, including Intel QuickAssist Technology (QAT) and In-Memory Analytics Accelerator (IAA).

In the memory fabric, you can see the standard flow through the DDR PHY into the memory controller, but Intel includes some special sauce at the end of the chain, notably an on-die snoop filter. A snoop filter is a directory to maintain cache coherency, and moving it onto the CPU removes directory storage and cache coherency tasks from the memory.

Interestingly, Intel isn't leveraging its advanced EMIB packaging to connect the fabric hubs to the CBBs. Instead, Intel is using a standard UCIe-S connection through copper in the substrate. Intel says that UCIe-S offered a "low-latency uniform connection to all of the memory hubs" that "made the most sense for Diamond Rapids."

There were a handful of questions around UCIe-S versus an advanced packaging technique, UCIe-A. Intel says the choice mainly came down to distance, with UCIe-A requiring multiple "hops" depending on the distance. UCIe-S provides uniform access across longer distances, enabling lower latencies across the entire chip.

Intel Advanced Performance Extensions and AVX 10.2 support in 'Diamond Rapids'

Although it's more of a footnote in the headline reveals about Diamond Rapids, the next-gen Xeon CPUs mark an important milestone in Intel's journey with AVX-512 and Intel's Advanced Performance Extensions, or APX, which has been described as a modernization of the x86 ISA. Both were described in 2023, and now they're showing up in Diamond Rapids.

First, AVX. Expectedly, Diamond Rapids marks the move to AVX 10.2, which is supported on both P-cores and E-cores (AVX 10.1 only worked on P-cores). AVX 10.1 served as a transition step off of AVX-512 and only supported 512-bit vector instructions. AVX 10.2 supports converged 256-bit vectors, enabling execution on both P-cores and E-cores.

Diamond Rapids also supports Intel's APX. APX doubles the number of general-purpose registers from 16 to 32 with new encoding for registers 16 through 31. Intel says software will see a performance improvement when recompiled with APX, and without source code changes. We heard about APX support in Panther Cove nearly two years ago for the first time.

APX requires 10% fewer loads and 20% fewer stores in memory, according to Intel, and includes some key instruction updates like condition load and store. It doesn't require a code change, either, with full compatibility with previous code bases.

Between AVX 10.2, AMX, centralized I/O and memory communication, and 18A-P, Diamond Rapids brings forth a lot of innovation that Intel has been talking about for a long time. Whether it's too little, too late remains to be seen with the missteps around Granite Rapids.

Given the explosion of CPU demand for agentic workloads, Intel has a competitive part here that, at least, supports the latest updates to the x86 ISA and borrows a lot of key design points from AMD's evolution with EPYC. Intel has continued to double down on Coral Rapids; however, the generation that will follow Diamond Rapids will reintroduce SMT to Xeon.

Full Intel Xeon Diamond Rapids Hot Chips 2026 presentation

IBM's next-gen AI processor is the first time it has supported dual ISA execution natively within the same core. Born out of a collaboration between IBM and Arm that was announced in April, the chip is designed to bring the software support available across the Arm ecosystem to IBM's mainframes, allowing businesses to unify deployment rather than relying on separate Arm/x86 servers and z/Architecture mainframes for different purposes.

The approach here isn't a heterogeneous CPU with separate Arm cores packaged on the same chip; IBM has built a core that can execute either z/Architecture or AArch64 instructions, and can switch between them dynamically "within nanoseconds," according to the company. During the Hot Chips 2026 reveal, IBM says it believes this is the first processor to treat both ISAs as "first-class citizens."

IBM relies on Linux Kernel-level Virtual Machine (KVM) to support AArch64 instructions, the same mechanism that allows IBM to support Linux on Z mainframes. Standard z/Architecture instructions bypass KVM. The idea is to ensure that mainframe reliability isn't sacrificed for broader software support, with IBM claiming 99.999999% uptime, even further than traditional high-availability claims. IBM says that equates to just 0.032 seconds of downtime per year.

Much of the development in the software world, particularly around AI, happens with x86 and/or Arm targets in mind, leaving the mainframe behind to figure out its own solution. IBM could, and has, worked to port this software to s390x, but that's not a long-term solution. "We would never be able to work with all of them," Tina Tarquinio, chief product officer at IBM for IBM Z and LinuxONE, told VentureBeat. IBM's dual-ISA core can execute Arm software without modifications, according to the company, allowing Arm-based virtual machines to run as if they were operating on native-Arm silicon. And that's because, well, they are operating on native-Arm silicon, just in a different way.

A high-level look at IBM's dual-ISA processor and next-gen Spyre accelerator

The processor that presumably will live in z18 mainframes comes with 11 high-performance cores, built on a 2nm process, that can operate at a base frequency of 5.7 GHz. Even on those specs, and ignoring dual-ISA execution, it's a considerable step up over the current Telum II processor that IBM introduced in 2024. That chip features eight cores operating at up to 5.5 GHz. Otherwise, IBM's dual-ISA processor comes with the same 36 MB of private L2, as well as virtual L3 and L4. These caches are larger than Telum II at 432 MB of virtual L3 and 3.5 GB of virtual L4.

Also carried forward is an on-chip DPU, as well as hardware accelerators for AI, compression, and cryptography workloads, same as Telum II. Outside of more cores and higher clocks, much of the work on IBM's dual-ISA processor happened, naturally, in the core itself, which we'll dig into in the next section.

The core supports simultaneous multithreading, which is available to both ISAs.

Alongside the processor, IBM teased its next-gen AI accelerator at Hot Chips 2026. It's considerably more capable than the current Spyre accelerator, which makes sense, given IBM's new capabilities with Arm. The new accelerator comes with 16 cores that include optimizations for newer AI data formats, including FP4/MXFP4.

The big change comes in memory, however, with IBM moving off LPDDR5 to lower-capacity but significantly higher-bandwidth HBM3e. Each accelerator comes with 96 GB of HBM3e, offering up to 4TB/s, 20x that of what IBM is able to deliver with LPDDR5.

IBM core changes to support z/Architecture and ARM

Much of the work on IBM's next-gen processor happened in the core itself in order to support native execution of AArch64 instructions. The chip has a full hardware implementation of AArch64 v9.3 with Scalable Vector Extension (SVE) support, supporting 2,792 AArch64 instructions.

Starting at the top of the core, the branch prediction area uses the existing Telum II design without any changes.

In the fetch engine, IBM leverages virtual cache tags to fetch data quickly with cache to avoid translation overhead.

IBM built automation tools to consume the ARM XML and understand how to move instructions through the core. IBM says this is the biggest area of silicon expansion in the core in order to support decoding AArch64 instructions.

In dispatch, IBM repurposed general purpose register rename in banked general registers 16 through 31.

In the arithmetic and load/store units, much of the major data flow is shared; addition is addition, as IBM put it. However, IBM implemented new hardware structures for SVE and special data types like FP16. IBM also says there was some non-obvious reuse of its existing CISC, such as memory copy and clear.

The X-Late, or translation, engine reuses the Translation Lookaside Buffer (TLB) but leverages a new page walk.

As opposed to a heterogeneous chip, which accomplishes mixing ISAs on the same die by leveraging different cores, IBM says the driving force behind a dual-ISA core was to deliver the scale of Arm software on a mission-critical platform. Mainframes are still the bedrock of vital data movement in financial institutions, governments, and more.

IBM generally ships new mainframes every two and a half to three years, with z17 mainframes revealed in 2024 at Hot Chips. We expect this mainframe to follow a similar timeline. As usual with deep mainframe infrastructure, however, the actual rollout largely depends on the institution's individual needs.

Full IBM Hot Chips 2026 presentation

AMD has been the dominant force in DIY PC building CPUs for several years now, thanks to the advent of Zen 3 and great chips like the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, and more recently its potent Ryzen 7 X3D SKUs like the 9800X3D. Now, just days after AMD touted that it continues to occupy all 10 slots in the Amazon CPU best-sellers list, a couple of Intel CPUs have broken into the list for the first time in months, as spotted by WCCFTech.

The two chips in question aren't surprising if you know ball. Coming in at number six is the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus for $290 USD; Intel's most recently released desktop CPU, and at nine we have the workaday Core i7-14700K for $312, a steady seller since its launch in 2023. It offers less performance in gaming than many of the other chips in the top 10 (including the cheaper 270K Plus), but it has the advantage of being able to slot into both aging LGA 1700 systems as well as new builds with DDR4 memory. That's also likely why the Ryzen 5 5500 continues to stay near the top of the chart at #2, while the Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X3D (in its 10th Anniversary guise) also rate high. As for the Core i7-14700K, we actually recommended it over the Ryzen 7 5800X3D in our review of the 10th Anniversary re-release of that chip for people who are building new DDR4 machines.

The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus appearing this high is heartening for Intel's sake, though. If you haven't kept up with Intel's CPU releases, this chip is a course correction from the first-generation "Arrow Lake" processors, offering outstanding productivity performance and very solid gaming performance, just a few percentage points off of the beloved Ryzen 7 7800X3D that sits one position above it in the rankings. Put frankly, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus beats everything else in the top 10 for both single- and multi-core performance save for the $569 Ryzen 9 9950X3D, which is in an entirely different price class from the $290 Intel chip (though discounted quite significantly at $569, 19% off the $699 list price)

It's clear that gaming continues to be a top driver for the DIY market. Five of the chips in the top 10 have been on our list of the Best CPUs for Gaming either now or at some point, including the number one seller, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. AMD's 3D V-Cache continues to be unbeatable in gaming, even if the Arrow Lake 'Plus' parts do their best to close the gap with extremely high single-core performance. It's not single-threaded speed that's the bottleneck anymore, though, and not for some time; the limitation in gaming frames is multivariate as it has ever been, but on the CPU side, it's largely down to memory performance these days, and that's exactly why AMD's 3D V-Cache chips dominate.

Of course, if you're reading Tom's Hardware, you probably don't need me to tell you that. But it's interesting to look at the pricing of the parts that are moving the most units. The Ryzen 5 5500 is a tame processor, but if you need a gaming PC for the absolute bottom dollar, it's hard to beat six Zen 3 cores with a CPU cooler for $84. The Ryzen 7 7800X3D seems an absurd choice next to the much faster Ryzen 7 9800X3D for less than $100 more, but the gaming performance is really pretty close, and you're likely to desire a drop-in Zen 6 processor upgrade late this year or early next year, so why spend the extra $85 now?

That CPU upgrade angle warrants consideration. Any Socket AM5 processor has a path forward, and that's not the case for any extant Intel platform nor for Socket AM4, despite the fact that Intel is apparently releasing new LGA 1700 chips eventually. Ultimately, memory pricing is probably driving a lot of these choices, but in the upgrade context, it's not quite as surprising to see five and a half of the top ten CPUs on platforms that require DDR5 memory—the 'half' being the Core i7-14700K, naturally.

You absolutely can build a DDR4 machine using the Raptor Lake Refresh CPUs, but the performance penalty can be significant; in our testing, we found that it was actually worse than just running a single DDR5 DIMM. It's the PC builder's Sophie's Choice: buy a last-generation CPU to save significant cash on the RAM, or suck it up and spend out massively on a system that offers the best performance now.

Pricing is naturally also a factor; the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus launched at the comically low price of $299 in comparison to the $589 Core Ultra 9 285K, which it performs very close to, so $290 isn't much of a discount there. Meanwhile, the Core i7-14700K's $311.99 price tag is 16% off of Amazon's list price of $370.99, but it's a bit larger markdown from Intel's $419 recommended customer price. Still, if pricing is your primary motivator, it's hard to ignore the $330 Ryzen 7 7800X3D (27% off list), at least as long as gaming is your main concern. There's the 5800X3D 10th Anniversary, too, but again, the Core i7-14700K actually offers better minimum framerates and vastly superior productivity performance, especially if you're willing to do some memory tuning.

Clearly, gamers have accepted that memory pricing isn't coming back down any time soon, and that the time to buy is now before it gets even worse. The shortage isn't expected to abate between now and late 2028; if you're keen to build a new machine in the in-between, make sure you keep an eye on our Deals posts to save yourself from bleeding too much at the checkout.

The second quarter of 2026 was quite favorable for CPU suppliers, as unit growth was 10% sequentially, with data center and laptop processor shipments more than offsetting declining sales of desktop CPUs and lower-end products for embedded and IoT applications, according to a new report by Mercury Research. AMD continued to gain market share, so its unit shipments and share reached a new record during the quarter; Intel managed to increase shipments of its client and data center CPUs; whereas Apple sold a boatload of processors in its popular MacBook Neo laptops. Overall, the report describes the desktop X86 CPU market as "ugly."

The sky is blue for CPU (for now)

"In spite of a decidedly gloomy outlook on client processors from the suppliers for the second quarter, actual results for both x86 and Arm CPUs were up strongly in the second quarter of 2026, with sequential quarterly growth of the total market exceeding 10%, far in excess of normal seasonal trends which call for a slight decline in the quarter," said Dean McCarron, principal analyst at Mercury Research. "Behind this growth was a large increase in Intel's CPU supplies, especially in mobile client, after a couple of heavily supply-constrained quarters, and continued strong ramps for AMD's products. […] Arm shipments also appeared to be strongly higher in the quarter as well."

While the CPU market was up quarter-over-quarter (QoQ) mostly because AMD, Apple, and Intel increased their shipment volumes, on a year-over-year (YoY) basis, the CPU market contracted in terms of units. However, the decline was primarily driven by significantly lower IoT, SoC, and embedded shipments — largely due to AMD's shrinking game console business — as well as a substantial drop in desktop CPU volumes. At the same time, shipments of data center and notebook processors grew strongly.

Excluding IoT, SoC, and embedded products, both AMD and Intel substantially increased CPU shipments sequentially, but AMD grew faster and gained unit share in every major segment, so the company now controls 30.7% of the overall x86 processor market, its highest share ever, according to Mercury Research. With IoT, console SoCs, and embedded CPUs included, AMD now controls 34.1% of the x86 processor market. Intel continues to lead, but AMD's growth is impressive.

"AMD's total unit shipments and total market share reached new record highs in the second quarter of 2026, with a sequential share gain of 0.7% and an on-year gain of 6.5%," McCarron said.

Client CPUs: AMD gains share as Intel increases shipments

Performance of the client x86 CPU market was a mixed bag in the first quarter as sales of desktop CPUs declined badly, whereas shipments of laptop processors grew significantly. Intel remained the clear volume leader with 69.7% of client CPU shipments, but lost share both sequentially and year-over-year. AMD continued to gain ground in Q2 2026 as its unit share reached a record 30.3%, up from 29.6% in Q1 and 23.9% in Q2 2025.

AMD gained share in both client categories. Its desktop unit share rose from 33.2% to 34.9% QoQ, even though AMD itself shipped fewer desktop CPUs; Intel's shipments declined even faster. In notebooks, AMD increased its share from 28.3% to 28.9%, even as Intel expanded production capacity and shipped millions more CPUs.

In general, the results for the quarter suggest that Intel's improved client CPU supply helped to meet demand from PC makers and led to a client PC market rebound, the company could not stop AMD's share gains.

Desktop CPUs: The ugliest segment of the market

Hit by limited availability of graphics cards and high prices of components like motherboards, memory modules, and SSDs, the desktop CPU market was particularly weak in Q2 and contracted by over 20% YoY as well as quarter-over-quarter due to seasonality. Both AMD and Intel suffered significant annual shipment declines, but AMD held up better, according to Mercury Research.

Despite dropping desktop CPU unit shipments and overall market weakness, AMD increased market share in Q2 2026. AMD's desktop CPU unit share upticked to 34.9%, up from 33.2% in Q1 and 32.2% in Q2 2025, while Intel's share fell to 65.1%, from 66.8% sequentially and 67.8% a year earlier.

During the quarter, AMD gained 1.8% QoQ and 2.7% YoY in unit share because declines in its shipments were considerably smaller than Intel's. So, while normally we say that AMD is gaining desktop share because of strong sales of its latest Ryzen CPUs, in this case AMD's success was driven by slower declines than rapid gains.

Mobile CPUs: Sales of laptops are growing

The mobile CPU market segment performed completely differently from the desktop CPU market segment. Mobile x86 CPU shipments grew significantly quarter-over-quarter and were also modestly higher YoY. Mercury Research says Intel added millions of units of mobile CPU capacity during Q2, which helped close the supply-demand gap that had constrained the company in previous quarters. Yet, AMD's shipments increased at nearly the same pace as Intel's, which enabled it to capture 0.6% of the market.

AMD's mobile CPU unit share rose to 28.9%, up from 28.3% in Q1 and from 20.6% in Q2 2025. Intel remained dominant with 71.1% of shipments, down from 71.7% sequentially and 79.4% a year earlier. As a result, AMD gained a modest 0.6% sequentially, but a much more impressive 8.4% YoY increase.

Server CPUs: +20% year-over-year

Demand for server CPUs increased for both traditional data center processors — AMD EPYC and Intel Xeon — and CPUs used in networking and storage applications, so x86 server processor shipments posted nearly 20% YoY growth and moderately strong sequential growth. AMD continued to gain market share and now commands over 1/3 of the server CPU market, according to Mercury Research. There is a catch, though: due to Intel accounting peculiarities, AMD's unit share is artificially low and so is Intel's own dollar share.

In Q2, AMD’s server CPU unit share increased to 34.5%, up from 33.2% in Q1 and 27.3% in Q2 2025. Intel remained the volume leader with 65.5% of shipments, but its share fell from 66.8% sequentially and 72.7% a year earlier. While some may say that AMD's gains are slow (not too slow at +7.3% YoY), there is an explanation behind that slow growth.

Mercury Research notes that its broad server share calculation somewhat disadvantages AMD because Intel's edge and networking processors are now reported within its Data Center and AI (DCAI) business, so in reality, AMD's unit share should be higher. If the comparison is narrowed to EPYC versus Xeon processors for servers, AMD's unit share reaches 46.4%, up a substantial 2.9% QoQ and 9.2% YoY, which puts AMD very close to Intel in the core data center CPU market. Meanwhile, if CPUs for edge and networking applications are ignored in Mercury's analysis, Intel's dollar share would increase considerably.

Mercury Research indicates that server CPU supply constraints could limit gains in Q3, but in Q4 sales of data center-grade processors will increase noticeably both compared to Q2 and Q3.

Summary

After a weak Q1, the CPU market rebounded strongly in Q2 2026 as unit shipments grew more than 10% sequentially. The market growth was driven by rising notebook and server CPU sales, which more than offset a sharp decline in desktops, according to Mercury Research.

AMD's performance was stellar as it gained ground in every major segment even as Intel substantially improved processor availability. Despite improved availability of Intel client and data center processors, AMD still outgrew Intel and reached record overall and client CPU unit shares.

Desktop remained the major weak spot due to high component costs and generally lower demand as enthusiasts pulled in their purchases to 2025, greatly lowering sales of high-end hardware in 2026. Shipments of desktop x86 CPUs fell more than 20% YoY, whereas mobile and server volumes increased.

In core data center processors, AMD's EPYC share approached Intel’s Xeon share, which highlights how dramatically the competitive balance in the server market has shifted.

Intel's upcoming, next-gen Nova Lake CPUs are rumored to feature extra pools of L3 cache that the company is calling bLLC (Big Last Level Cache). It's Intel's answer to AMD's 3D V-Cache that has taken the gaming world by storm, but a new report from tipster Jaykihn implies that Nova Lake mobile chips will be skipping it entirely. Instead, the company is purportedly reserving bLLC's mobile debut for the generation after, codenamed Razor Lake.

That implies that only Nova Lake desktop processors will be the lucky recipients of bLLC, and even then, only a few higher-end SKUs are expected to feature it. Current rumors suggest a single NVL-S tile is said to house 144MB of bLLC when fully equipped, so dual-tile variants will double that to a whopping 288MB. But it seems like any laptop chip, or perhaps handheld, will be starved of this extra cache and rely on NVL-HX's native L3 cache.

In contrast, AMD first brought its 3D V-Cache over to laptops with the Ryzen 9 7945HX3D back in 2023, and has a Ryzen 9 9995HX3D chip today. Those two act as exceptions because, otherwise, the Red Team's additional cache is exclusive to desktops as well. AMD's flagship Strix Halo products aimed at gaming don't feature it either. Coincidentally, Intel's Halo-tier competitor is also said to debut with the Razor Lake family.

Earlier this year, rumors suggested that Intel is developing Nova Lake-AX to take on AMD's dominance in the high-end APU space, but the project was subsequently cancelled. New information said Intel decided to pivot to Razor Lake for an "AX" category instead, so it stands to reason we might see bLLC power Razor Lake-AX SKUs later as well, alongside the mainstream Razor Lake-HX chips.

In the same thread, Jaykihn also claimed that Razor Lake will be fabricated on TSMC's N2X node across mobile and desktop. On the other hand, it's still unclear whether Nova Lake would use the in-house 18A process or TSMC's N2P. Initial rumors pointed toward yield issues forcing Intel to leverage TSMC's technology, but more recent claims suggest the company is confident in its own 18A tech for most of Nova Lake's tiles.

It's likely that the Blue Team will utilize some combination of in-house and outsourced fabrication. Anyhow, for Razor Lake, TSMC's process technology roadmap from earlier this year puts N2X in 2027, so the timelines align. Razor Lake is expected to use the same Coyote Cove P-cores and Arctic Wolf E-cores that will be introduced on Nova Lake, while the generation after — Titan Lake — is rumored to finally unify the two.

Intel will launch its new core with Nova Lake on desktop first, not in the data center. Tom’s Hardware Premium recently sat down with Intel VP and general manager of the enthusiast channel business Robert Hallock and asked about his reaction to AMD launching Zen 6 first in the data center with new EPYC Venice CPUs — breaking with over a decade of AMD leading with a client release for its new architectures. Hallock opened up about Intel’s enthusiast roadmap and said the company is “very serious” about executing that roadmap.

“I think it's a natural reaction for them. Makes a lot of sense. What I would say is, as we think about our own roadmap, I have a new core. It's coming to desktop first. I mean, I hope enthusiasts do the math about that one, and that's all I'm going to say,” said Hallock when we asked for his reaction to the Venice launch.

AMD has a unified processor architecture across client and enterprise, which, combined with chiplets, allows AMD to easily scale up or down new architectures to fit a wide range of applications. The core architecture and chiplets at work in the data center are largely identical to the ones in a consumer processor; minus some obvious cutting around memory channels, PCIe lanes, etc.

Intel’s architecture sharing isn’t as clean, with various codenames thrown around for each core with each new generation of products, regardless of whether those products are from Xeon or not. However, Intel’s core architectures share a lot of DNA. Golden Cove was launched first with Sapphire Rapids but was tweaked for Raptor Lake with Raptor Cove; Redwood Cove launched in Meteor Lake first before working its way into Granite Rapids. The rumored “Panther Cove” core architecture for upcoming Diamond Rapids CPUs is likely a refresh of the Cougar Cove cores in Panther Lake. With Nova Lake, the new core (rumored to be called Coyote Cove) will launch on desktop first, with whatever variation (or perhaps an entirely new core) working its way into Xeon eventually.

The sudden surge in demand for CPUs in new agentic AI data centers has upended the traditional release cadence of AMD and Nvidia. Nvidia has shifted great focus toward its new Vera CPU, while AMD moved forward with Venice ahead of Olympus Ridge; the codename for consumer CPUs with the Zen 6 microarchitecture. Intel’s roadmap, at least among the enthusiast desktop business, remains steadfast, Hallock suggested.

“I have all the new CPUs all the way out to 2030. I have [a] back to back to back to back cadence of product for gamers, for desktop, built for that purpose,” Hallock said. “Obviously I can’t go into what any of that is, but I am accelerating for the gaming market… we’re moving faster than we ever have in product, in release cadence.”

It’s worth reiterating that Hallock is referring to Intel’s roadmap here. He does not have processors in hand reaching out to 2030.

Although the roadmap sounds ambitious, Intel lost plenty of points with the enthusiast community when Arrow Lake launched. You know the story by now, with the new range often underperforming the older Raptor Lake offerings in games. Hallock says he understands that hesitation.

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

Intel has made some efforts to regain the lost trust with Arrow Lake with Arrow Lake Refresh. The two CPUs in the range, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, rank among the best CPUs for gaming, helping erode the narrative that the original Arrow Lake range set in stone. That wasn’t an accident. Hallock revealed that a “pretty much completely different” team worked on Arrow Lake Refresh, and that team is moving forward with Nova Lake.

“We took a team that was time-shared with other businesses, and now this slice of the market has a full org structure inside Intel… they’re putting real people with a lot of budget behind it, right? And having an owner, a sponsor, people that care about it, looking after it, custodians of that work, it makes a real difference,” Hallock said. “[The team was] pretty much completely different. Marketing people, different product managers, different business people, and we simply have a different philosophy on how this market should run and what people should get for their dollar.”

Presumably, Hallock’s team and the philosophy driving it is born partially out of his time at AMD. The VP spent 12 years at AMD, covering numerous significant milestones, including the introduction of Ryzen and the Zen core, and AMD’s first 3D V-Cache CPU. He joined Intel in 2023, and has overseen the launch of Arrow Lake and Arrow Lake Refresh. As a technical marketing leader, Hallock doesn’t meddle in the nuts and bolts of processor design. However, he covers the rollout of products, including aspects like naming and branding.

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

45 years ago, in August 1981, the PC age began in earnest with the launch of the IBM PC Model 5150. At its heart was the Intel 8088 microprocessor, a cheaper sibling of the processor that pioneered the x86 architecture, the famed Intel 8086. Intel’s new affordability-targeted processor, its IBM PC design win, and Big Blue’s decision to allow the making of PC clones would kickstart four and a half decades of PC compatibles dominating personal computing.

It is interesting to read about why sales engineer Earl Whetstone managed to return to Intel with a signed and sealed deal for supplying the Intel 8088 (June 1979), while the superior 8086 (June 1978) was overlooked. In a nutshell, it is the economics that won it for the Intel 8088.

Bits and busses

Intel’s influential Intel 8086 delivered the first x86 architecture chip and had a 16-bit internal architecture, with a matching 16-bit external data bus. Meanwhile, the 8088, introduced a year later, took that design and sliced the external data bus width in half, to 8-bit. This would make the newer 8088 slower, probably just into double digits, all else being equal. However, the 8088 was cheaper and also allowed IBM to pick up common 1980s-era components to configure the Model 5150, which also boosted system affordability.

Meanwhile, software written for the 8086, an ecosystem developed in the few years between the introduction of the first x86 architecture chip, would be central to IBM’s plans for the Model 5150 being realized. By 1981, there were versions of DOS for x86 ready, and the creators of key third-party software like WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, dBase, and a host of other early suites and tools were developing for x86. This helped the IBM PC Model 5150 become a hit product out of the gate.

There have been over a dozen x86 processor manufacturers

Commenting on this important date for Intel, IBM, and the birth of the PC industry as we know it, analyst Patrick Moorhead tweeted about the diverse canon of x86 processor manufacturers over the years. In addition to Intel and AMD, most computer history buffs will be familiar with Cyrix x86, and perhaps even efforts from IBM, NEC, and NexGen. However, Moorhead reminds us that NEC also made x86 chips, as have Texas Instruments, IDT (Centaur Technology), Rise Technology, SGS-Thomson, and Transmeta.

Moorhead’s dozen wasn’t even a fully complete list. Others on social media pointed out that the following firms may have (if memory serves correctly) produced x86 chips at some point: ALi/ULi, Harris, Fujitsu, and Zhaoxin.

Into the AI-computing era

On its IBM partnership giving birth to the PC age, Intel concluded its anniversary message by saying “We look forward to continuing that teamwork for another 45 years and beyond.”

However, we note that Intel also talks about building on the legacy of the original PC into the AI-computing age. Ironically, it is the AI boom that has caused many people to be priced out of new PCs, new components, and/or upgrades in the last few months.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hallock: They are.

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

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

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

Intel’s flexibility in the consumer market

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Intel’s enthusiast roadamps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Intel's approach to AI in the enthusiast segment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenging AMD with new consumer hardware

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A post-Arrow Lake shakeup

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

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

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

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

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

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

The importance of CPU software optimization

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

Hallock: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

Roach: A lot of Sony games.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hallock: That’s right.

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

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

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

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

Checking in on IBOT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adressing Nova Lake rumors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Session ends]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can see Qualcomm's full slide deck below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Setting up and configuring the BC-250

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

Here’s what I’d recommend at minimum:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CachyOS pivot

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

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

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

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

Getting set back up was simple thanks to a community script that automates nearly all of the configuration and optimization for the BC-250. The BC250-Toolkit script brings together all of the various community patches, including optional optimizations, and it just worked. Coming off of Bazzite, it was a treat not to run up against the immutable walls of the distro. I was able to accomplish in a few hours what took me more than a day with Bazzite.

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

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

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

Testing performance on the BC-250

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bad and the ugly of BC-250 gaming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐ Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐ Winner: Tie

More CPU Faceoffs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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