Latest from Tom's Hardware UK in Intel-core-i3-8350k

CPU Benchmarks and Hierarchy 2026: CPU Rankings

Jake Roach — Sat, 18 Nov 2023 13:25:13 +0000

CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

Tom's Hardware

In the album above, you can see our master charts for gaming, single-threaded, and multi-threaded performance for CPUs. For games, all of our testing was done with an Nvidia RTX 5090 FE, and for applications, our testing was done with an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti FE. For applications, no compute is actively running on the GPU; it’s a glorified display output that shares a driver with our gaming GPU. You can find a full breakdown of the test benches we used at the end of this article.

Gaming CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

Gaming CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026
CPU / (MSRP)	Street Price	1080p Gaming Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads (P+E)	Base/Boost Clock (GHz)	TDP / Maximum Power
Ryzen 7 9850X3D ($500)	$499	100%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 7 9800X3D ($480)	$464	97%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.2	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 9950X3D ($700)	$676	95.7%	Zen 5 X3D	16 / 32	4.3 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Ryzen 9 9900X3D ($600)	$530	86.9%	Zen 5 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.5	120W / 230W
Ryzen 7 7800X3D ($450)	$399	85.6%	Zen 4 X3D	8 / 16	4.2 / 5	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 7950X3D ($700)	$650	83.9%	Zen 4 X3D	16 / 32	4.2 / 5.7	120W / 162W
Ryzen 5 7600X3D ($300)	$246	80.6%	Zen 4 X3D	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.7	65W / 88W
Core i9-14900K ($550)	$469	78.2%	Raptor Lake Refresh	24 / 32 (8+16)	3.2 / 6	125W / 253W
Core Ultra 7 270K Plus ($300)	$350	77.5%	Arrow Lake Refresh	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Ryzen 7 7900X3D ($600)	Out of Stock	77.1%	Zen 4 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 9950X ($650)	$520	76.9%	Zen 5	16 / 32	4.7 / 5/7	170W / 230W
Core i9-13900K ($590)	Out of Stock	76.8%	Raptor Lake	24 / 32 (8+16)	3 / 5.8	125W / 253W
Core i7-14700K ($410)	$340	76.4%	Raptor Lake Refresh	20 / 28 (8+12)	3.4 / 5.6	125W / 253W
Core i7-13700K ($410)	Out of Stock	75.8%	Raptor Lake	16 / 24 (8+8)	3.4 / 5.4	125W / 253W
Ryzen 9 9900X ($500)	$439	73.9%	Zen 5	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Core Ultra 5 250K Plus ($200)	$220	73.3%	Arrow Lake Refresh	18 / 18 (6+12)	4.2 / 5.3	125W / 159W
Core i5-14600K ($320)	$300	72.8%	Raptor Lake Refresh	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.3	125W / 181W
Ryzen 5 9600X ($280)	$188	72.6%	Zen 5	6 / 12	3.9 / 5.4	65W / 88W
Core Ultra 9 285K ($590)	$557	71.8%	Arrow Lake	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.7	125W / 250W
Ryzen 9 7950X ($700)	Out of Stock	71%	Zen 4	16 / 32	4.5 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Core i5-13600K ($320)	$319	70.9%	Raptor Lake	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.1	125W / 181W
Ryzen 7 7700X ($400)	$249	70.6%	Zen 4	8 / 16	4.5 / 5.4	105W / 142W
Core Ultra 7 265K ($400)	$284	70.3%	Arrow Lake	20 / 20 (8+12)	3.9 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Ryzen 9 7900X ($550)	$299	69.2%	Zen 4	12 / 24	4.7 / 5.6	170W / 230W
Ryzen 5 7600X ($300)	$180	67.3%	Zen 4	6 / 12	4.7 / 5.3	105W / 142W
Core Ultra 5 245K ($320)	$202	67.1%	Arrow Lake	14 / 14 (6+8)	4.2 / 5.2	125W / 159W
Core i7-12700K ($410)	$285	65.8%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8+4)	3.6 / 5	125W / 190W
Core Ultra 5 225 ($183)	$180	62.5%	Arrow Lake	10 / 10 (6+4)	3.3 / 4.9	65W / 121W
Core i5-12600K ($290)	$185	60.8%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	3.7 / 4.9	125W / 150W
Core i5-14400 ($220)	$250	58%	Raptor Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	2.5 / 4.7	65W / 154W

You can see the relative score for AMD and Intel CPUs above, measured against the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, which is the fastest gaming CPU on the market, per our testing. So, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D offers 97.04% of the performance of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, while the Ryzen 9 7900X offers 69.28% of the performance. You can set any CPU as a baseline for comparison with Bench, which is available in Tom’s Hardware Premium.

All of our gaming tests were run with the RTX 5090 FE at 1080p with a mixture of High and Ultra settings. We run each test multiple times — usually between three and five — and pick the median result. In other words, the results we use are real, recorded runs, not an average of several different runs. This is important as some games, such as Far Cry 6, show great CPU scaling but are otherwise inconsistent run-to-run.

In addition to consistent hardware (test benches at the end of this article), we use a consistent test image between platforms. That means the same GPU driver, the same Windows install, the game version, etc. We also tested with Virtualization-Based Security (VBS) turned off, Resizable BAR turned on, and automatic overclocking features disabled. That includes the Intel Extreme power profile and AMD’s PBO, both of which aren’t covered under standard warranty.

For this refresh, we tested 17 games and then calculated a geometric mean of the results. A simple average would provide skewed results with such a large test pool. A geomean provides a more realistic view of how each CPU compares to the others.

Here are the games that we used for testing:

Counter-Strike 2
The Last of Us Part One
Cyberpunk 2077
Starfield
A Plague Tale: Requiem
Hogwarts Legacy
F1 24
Marvel’s Spider-Man 2
Baldur’s Gate 3
Monster Hunter: Wilds
Final Fantasy XIV
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024
Doom: The Dark Ages
Oblivion Remastered
Far Cry 6
Hitman 3
Minecraft RTX

We’re constantly evaluating new games to include in our test suite — see our recent stories on Resident Evil Requiem CPU scaling and Crimson Desert CPU scaling — but we maintain a list of tried-and-true benchmarks for our hierarchy rankings. We want to avoid including brand-new titles, which may see many updates, to keep our rankings as true to reality as possible. If you want more about the rationale behind our game choices, see our behind the scenes look at our CPU hierarchy testing.

Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

2026 Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks
	Single-Threaded App Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads (P+E)	Base/Boost Clock (GHz)	TDP / Maximum Power
Core Ultra 7 270K Plus	100%	Arrow Lake Refresh	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Core Ultra 9 285K	98.5%	Arrow Lake	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.7	125W / 250W
Core Ultra 7 265K	96.8%	Arrow Lake	20 / 20 (8+12)	3.9 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Core i9-14900K	95.4%	Raptor Lake Refresh	24 / 32 (8+16)	3.2 / 6	125W / 253W
Core Ultra 5 250K Plus	94%	Arrow Lake Refresh	18 / 18 (6+12)	4.2 / 5.3	125W / 159W
Ryzen 9 9950X	93.3%	Zen 5	16 / 32	4.7 / 5/7	170W / 230W
Ryzen 7 9850X3D	93.2%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 9950X3D	92.8%	Zen 5 X3D	16 / 32	4.3 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Core Ultra 5 245K	92.5%	Arrow Lake	14 / 14 (6+8)	4.2 / 5.2	125W / 159W
Core i9-13900K	92.4%	Raptor Lake	24 / 32 (8+16)	3 / 5.8	125W / 253W
Ryzen 9 9900X	92.2%	Zen 5	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 9900X3D	90.8%	Zen 5 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.5	120W / 230W
Ryzen 9 9700X / 105W TDP	90.6% / 90.5%	Zen 5	8 /16	3.8 / 5.5	65W / 88W
Core i7-14700K	90.1%	Raptor Lake Refresh	20 / 28 (8+12)	3.4 / 5.6	125W / 253W
Ryzen 5 9600X / 105W TDP	89% / 88.9%	Zen 5	6 / 12	3.9 / 5.4	65W / 88W
Ryzen 7 9800X3D	87.6%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.2	120W / 162W
Core Ultra 5 225	87.3%	Arrow Lake	10 / 10 (6+4)	3.3 / 4.9	65W / 121W
Core i7-13700K	86.7%	Raptor Lake	16 / 24 (8+8)	3.4 / 5.4	125W / 253W
Core i5-14600K	85.8%	Raptor Lake Refresh	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.3	125W / 181W
Ryzen 9 7950X3D	85.4%	Zen 4 X3D	16 / 32	4.2 / 5.7	120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 7950X	85.2%	Zen 4	16 / 32	4.5 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Ryzen 9 7900X3D	84%	Zen 4 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 7 7700X	84%	Zen 4	8 / 16	4.5 / 5.4	105W / 142W
Core i5-13600K	82.4%	Raptor Lake	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.1	125W / 181W
Core i7-12700K	79.7%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8+4)	3.6 / 5	125W / 190W
Core i5-12600K	78.6%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	3.7 / 4.9	125W / 150W
Ryzen 7 7800X3D	77.3%	Zen 4 X3D	8 / 16	4.2 / 5	120W / 162W
Core i5-14400	75.4%	Raptor Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	2.5 / 4.7	65W / 154W
Ryzen 5 7600X3D	73.2%	Zen 4 X3D	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.7	65W / 88W
Ryzen 5 7600X	71.5%	Zen 4	6 / 12	4.7 / 5.3	105W / 142W

We run hundreds of tests for each CPU, but only a small subset of those tests factor into our single-threaded rankings. We use the mp3 encoder LAME with a single thread (both standard and extended), Cinebench 2026 and 2024’s single-threaded test, the ray-traced renderer POV-ray, and WebXRT4, which runs a series of browser-based applications written in various languages.

The fastest chip in the pool here is the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, which scores 100%, with every other chip scored relative to it. The Core i9-14900K offers 95.4% of the single-threaded performance of the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, the Ryzen 5 9600X offers 89% of the performance, and so on.

Most real-world workloads aren’t strictly single-threaded, which is why we include it on a subset of the total tests we run. The goal is to see what relative performance looks like in lightly-threaded applications, as well as look into the overall architecture of different CPUs. Single-threaded performance exposes a lot about the architecture in a way that heavily-threaded applications tend to mask.

We’re, of course, looking at performance on a single core, favoring high clock speeds and IPC (instructions per cycle). However, single-threaded performance also says a lot about what’s going on elsewhere inside the CPU, from the speed of the IMC (integrated memory controller) to the fabric/ring speed. That’s why we see things like the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus outperforming the Core Ultra 9 285K, despite the latter sporting higher clock speeds.

Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

2026 Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks
	Single-Threaded App Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads (P+E)	Base/Boost Clock (GHz)	TDP / Maximum Power
Ryzen 9 9950X3D	100%	Zen 5 X3D	16 / 32	4.3 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Ryzen 9 9950X	96.8%	Zen 5	16 / 32	4.7 / 5/7	170W / 230W
Core Ultra 7 270K Plus	95.6%	Arrow Lake Refresh	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Core Ultra 9 285K	88.7%	Arrow Lake	24 / 24 (8+16)	3.7 / 5.7	125W / 250W
Ryzen 9 7950X	88%	Zen 4	16 / 32	4.5 / 5.7	170W / 230W
Ryzen 9 7950X3D	84.4%	Zen 4 X3D	16 / 32	4.2 / 5.7	120W / 162W
Core i9-14900K	83.9%	Raptor Lake Refresh	24 / 32 (8+16)	3.2 / 6	125W / 253W
Core i9-13900K	81%	Raptor Lake	24 / 32 (8+16)	3 / 5.8	125W / 253W
Core Ultra 7 265K	78.9%	Arrow Lake	20 / 20 (8+12)	3.9 / 5.5	125W / 250W
Ryzen 9 9900X3D	77%	Zen 5 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.5	120W / 230W
Ryzen 9 9900X	76.7%	Zen 5	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Core i7-14700K	75.1%	Raptor Lake Refresh	20 / 28 (8+12)	3.4 / 5.6	125W / 253W
Core Ultra 5 250K Plus	70.9%	Arrow Lake Refresh	18 / 18 (6+12)	4.2 / 5.3	125W / 159W
Core i7-13700K	67.1%	Raptor Lake	16 / 24 (8+8)	3.4 / 5.4	125W / 253W
Ryzen 9 7900X3D	63.9%	Zen 4 X3D	12 / 24	4.4 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 7 9850X3D	57%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.6	120W / 162W
Ryzen 7 9800X3D	56.9%	Zen 5 X3D	8 / 16	4.7 / 5.2	120W / 162W
Core Ultra 5 245K	55.8%	Arrow Lake	14 / 14 (6+8)	4.2 / 5.2	125W / 159W
Core i5-14600K	53.9%	Raptor Lake Refresh	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.3	125W / 181W
Core i7-12700K	51.9%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8+4)	3.6 / 5	125W / 190W
Core i5-13600K	50.3%	Raptor Lake	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.1	125W / 181W
Ryzen 7 9700X / 105W TDP	47.2% / 53.2%	Zen 5	8 /16	3.8 / 5.5	65W / 88W
Ryzen 7 7700X	46.8%	Zen 4	8 / 16	4.5 / 5.4	105W / 142W
Ryzen 7 7800X3D	44.5%	Zen 4 X3D	8 / 16	4.2 / 5	120W / 162W
Ryzen 5 9600X / 105W TDP	39.7% / 41.7%	Zen 5	6 / 12	3.9 / 5.4	65W / 88W
Core i5-12600K	39.5%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	3.7 / 4.9	125W / 150W
Core Ultra 5 225	38.5%	Arrow Lake	10 / 10 (6+4)	3.3 / 4.9	65W / 121W
Ryzen 5 7600X3D	33.1%	Zen 4 X3D	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.7	65W / 88W
Core i5-14400	32.7%	Raptor Lake	10 / 16 (6+4)	2.5 / 4.7	65W / 154W
Ryzen 5 7600X	31.3%	Zen 4	6 / 12	4.7 / 5.3	105W / 142W

Similar to single-threaded rankings, we use a subset of the total tests we run for CPU reviews in ranking multithreaded performance. Cinebench and POV-ray show up here again, this time using as many threads as possible, alongside VRay, four Blender tests, and Handbrake using various codecs. Although most applications will leverage multiple threads these days, we’re specifically looking at applications that will take as many threads as possible to maximize compute.

Compared to single-threaded workloads, heavily-threaded tasks are less concerned with clock speed and put a greater emphasis on interconnects and core-to-core latency. Core count is obviously important, as well, though it’s been somewhat undermined by Intel’s hybrid architectures over the last several generations.

Given that we’re spanning multiple nodes, core count alone isn’t indicative of higher multithreaded performance. Yes, higher core counts within the same generation will usually provide higher multithreaded performance, but a slew of other factors can increase performance, as well, from all-core and uncore frequencies to higher transistor density. Because of the wide swath of factors, you can see much more aggressive scaling with our multithreaded rankings compared to single-threaded rankings.

Integrated GPU Gaming CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

Tom's Hardware

iGPU Performance relative to Ryzen 7 5700G
	1280x720	1920x1080
Ryzen 7 5700G B550-E	100%	100%
Ryzen 5 5600G	96.3%	96%
Ryzen 7 4750G	92.9%	94.1%
Ryzen 3 5300G	85.8%	87.2%
Ryzen 5 3400G	83.5%	84.1%
Ryzen 3 3200G	77.1%	78.1%
Intel UHD Graphics 750 32 EU (11600K, 11700K)	58.3%	~48.9%
Intel UHD Graphics 730 24 EU (i5-11400)	51.7%	42.9%
Intel UHD Graphics 630 24 EU (10600K)	36.0%	34.4%

Here's our list of gaming performance with integrated graphics on several of the leading APUs available. We've split this into two different price ranges, so be sure to flip through all of the performance charts. For a bit of commentary and analysis of these results, head to our Ryzen 7 5700G, Ryzen 5 5600G, and Ryzen 3 5300G reviews. The most powerful chip gets a 100, and all others are scored relative to it.

How to Benchmark your CPU

It’s important to know how to benchmark your CPU. It gives you a way to compare performance after an overclock or a CPU upgrade, and it allows you to check if you’re getting the full performance out of your system. Maybe a poor CPU cooler mount is limiting your performance, or maybe your BIOS settings aren’t optimal. Using benchmarks to compare your results lets you see where your rig stacks up, not only for leaderboard purposes, but also basic troubleshooting.

The key to benchmarking your CPU is consistency. The only variable that should change is your CPU, be it a new CPU or an overclock/undervolt. Before starting, make sure to close any applications running in the background. That’s not only to net peak performance, but also to avoid any inconsistencies between runs. Background apps can gobble up threads inconsistently, making it difficult to compare your results from run to run.

If you want more consistency, you can optionally run the following command before benchmarking in an elevated command prompt:

Rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks

This will force Windows to perform the background tasks it normally does when your PC is idle. It’s not essential, but it’s a good sanity check to make sure there’s nothing interfering with your results.

For applications, you want to test the apps you actually use. If you use the Adobe suite, for example, you can download and use PugetBench for free and compare your results with Puget’s database. A lot of apps don’t have these easy-to-use benchmarking tools and databases, so you need to find a proxy. For instance, Procyon Office measures Microsoft Office performance, but a license costs nearly $1,600 per year. PCMark 10 Basic, which is free, measures open-source office applications. Below, we have some of our favorite free benchmarks for comparing CPU performance.

In games, you can take two approaches: manual or automated. Some modern games include built-in benchmarking tools, such as Cyberpunk 2077 and Doom: The Dark Ages, and although they aren’t perfect, they’re easy to run and highly repeatable. The best way to measure CPU gaming performance, however, is manual benchmarking.

That involves finding a scene where you can go over a specific path repeatedly. That could be starting from a specific checkpoint that you can reload or resorting to a manual save where you start from the exact same position. Regardless, it’s important to avoid randomness in your testing. Keep the path consistent — for example, a walking path through a town — and try not to swing the camera around.

For measuring performance in games, you’ll need a performance monitoring tool. There are simple apps like Nvidia’s FrameView, which logs a ton of information but is a little cumbersome to deal with; it exports data to spreadsheets. CapFrameX is a good alternative, which uses the same backend as FrameView (Intel’s PresentMon), but comes with a user-friendly GUI and extra features like the ability to generate charts right in the app.

After you run your benchmarks, you need a comparison point. Databases like Puget are your best resources on that front. If you’re comparing results to reviews, forum threads, or other systems, keep in mind the variables that can influence performance. It’s not a good idea to compare performance with uncontrolled variables unless you have a wide swath of comparison points.

Best CPU Benchmarks You Can Run

Cinebench 2026 – Cinebench is the quintessential CPU benchmark, used almost universally in reviews, and it’s completely free to download and use.
Geekbench 6 – Geekbench has a number of issues, but it offers a massive database for comparing your system against other similar systems. And it’s free to download and run.
Blender – Blender has a benchmarking utility with a GUI that’s free to download, as well as a large database of results.
PCMark 10 Basic – The main PCMark 10 benchmark is free to use with the Basic edition, allowing you to test productivity performance with open-source office apps, as well as compare your scores with UL’s database.
Handbrake – Handbrake is a powerful, free, and open-source video transcoding tool, and it’s easy to run benchmarks with. Use any video file, make sure your settings are the same, and start a stopwatch to measure the time encoding takes. Lower is better.
WebXPRT 5 – WebXPRT runs a variety of web applications directly in your browser, for free, and with a database to compare results to. It takes a while to run, however.
JetStream 2 – JetStream is a faster browser-based benchmark, though it doesn’t have a database of results.
CPU-Z – CPU-Z isn’t a reliable benchmark for real-world performance, but it includes single- and multithreaded tests, it’s easy to run, and you’ll find results online almost as commonly as Cinebench results.
Y-cruncher – This test calculates Pi with digit extraction, and it’s accelerated with SIMD instructions like AVX. You can only run it from a command line, but it’s relatively straightforward.
PugetBench – Puget includes benchmarks for the biggest apps in the Adobe suite, as well as DaVinci Resolve. The benchmark itself is free, and Puget maintains a large database. You’ll need a license for the applications it tests, however.

2026 CPU Benchmarks Test System and Configuration

2026 CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy Test Setup
Intel LGA 1851 (Arrow Lake and Refresh)
Motherboard	ASRock Z890 Taichi
RAM	2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo RGB DDR5-7200
Intel LGA 1700 (Raptor Lake, Alder Lake)
Motherboard	MSI MPG Z790 Carbon Wi-Fi
RAM	2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo RGB DDR5-7200
AMD AM5 (Zen 5, Zen 4)
Motherboard	MSI MPG X870E Carbon Wi-Fi, Gigabyte Aorus X870E Elite X3D ICE
RAM	2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo RGB DDR5-6000
All Systems
Gaming CPU	Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 Founder’s Edition
Application GPU	Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founder’s Edition
Cooler	Corsair iCue Link H150i RGB
Storage	2TB Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus
PSU	MSI MPG A1000GS, Gigabyte UD1000GM PG5 V2
Other	Arctic MX-4 TIM, Windows 11 Pro, Alamengda open test bench

MORE: Best CPUs for Gaming
MORE: AMD vs Intel
MORE: 13th-Gen Raptor Lake All We Know
MORE: Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 All We Know
MORE: How to Overclock a CPU
MORE: How to check CPU Temperature
MORE: All CPUs Content

2020 - 2022 CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy

You can find our rankings of the most current-gen systems on the previous page. The results below are from our legacy benchmarks, using a different GPU and test systems than our current CPU benchmark rankings. However, this provides great historical context and also includes other previous-gen CPUs not included in our new test suite. You'll also find our even older legacy rankings further below. These date back over the last decade.

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 CPU Benchmarks Rankings - Windows 10 and 11

Tom's Hardware

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Gaming CPU Benchmarks Ranking

Legacy: Gaming CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2020 - 2022 - Windows 11
	1080p Gaming Score	1440p Gaming Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads (P+E)	Base/Boost GHz	TDP - MTP
$589 - Core i9-13900K	100.00%	100.00%	Raptor Lake	24 / 32 (8+16)	3.0 / 5.8	125 / 253W
$409 - Core i7-13700K	96.09%	97.09%	Raptor Lake	16 / 24 (8+8)	3.4 / 5.4	125 / 253W
$365 - Ryzen 7 5800X3D	94.42%	97.45%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.4 / 4.5	105W
$319 - Core i5-13600K	90.03%	92.94%	Raptor Lake	14 / 20 (6+8)	3.5 / 5.1	125 / 181W
$474 - Ryzen 9 7900X	87.40%	90.52%	Zen 4	12 / 24	4.7 / 5.6	170 / 230W
$569 - Ryzen 9 7950X	87.25%	90.27%	Zen 4	16 / 32	4.5 / 5.7	170 / 230W
$349 - Ryzen 7 7700X	87.13%	91.55%	Zen 4	8 /16	4.5 / 5.4	105 / 142W
$329 - Ryzen 7 7700	86.19%	88.88%	Zen 4	8 / 16	3.8 / 5.3	65 / 88W
$429 - Ryzen 9 7900	84.75%	88.46%	Zen 4	12 / 24	4.7 / 5.6	170 / 230W
$249 - Ryzen 5 7600X	83.62%	88.44%	Zen 4	6 / 12	4.7 / 5.3	105 / 142W
$229 - Ryzen 5 7600	79.74%	85.97%	Zen 4	6 / 12	3.8 / 5.1	65 / 88W
$550 - Ryzen 9 5950X	72.04%	77.51%	Zen 3	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.9	105W
$350 - Ryzen 9 5900X	71.69%	78.95%	Zen 3	12 / 24	3.7 / 4.8	105W
$235 - Ryzen 7 5800X	70.90%	78.19%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.7	105W
$210 - Ryzen 7 5700X	69.50%	76.65%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.4 / 4.6	65W
$165 - Ryzen 5 5600X	67.52%	74.68%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.6	65W
$189 - Core i5-12400	66.62%	73.53%	Alder Lake	6 / 12 (6+0)	2.5 / 4.4	65 / 117W

Legacy: Gaming CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2020 - 2022 - Windows 10
	1080p Gaming Score	1440p Gaming Score	CPU	Cores/Threads	Base/Boost GHz	TDP	Buy
Intel Core i9-12900K DDR4 / DDR5	100% / 93.51%	100% / 95.86%	Alder Lake	16 / 24 (8P+8E)	3.2 / 5.2	125 / 241W	Core i9-12900K
Intel Core i9-11900K	92.48%	97.26%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.5 / 5.3	125W	Core i9-11900K
Intel Core i7-12700K DDR4 / DDR5	97.71% / 91.23%	99.8% / 97.30%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8P+4E)	3.6 / 4.9	125 / 190W	Core i7-12700K
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X	90.98%	93.18%	Zen 3	12 / 24	3.7 / 4.8	105W	Ryzen 9 5900X
Intel Core i5-12600K DDR4 / DDR5	90.89% / 84.32%	96.94% / 92.33%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6P+4E)	3.7 / 4.9	125 / 150W	Core i5-12600K
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X	90.22%	95.32%	Zen 3	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.9	105W	Ryzen 9 5950X
AMD Threadripper Pro 5975WX	88.71%	89.71%	Zen 3	32 / 64	3.6 / 4.5	280W	Threadripper Pro 5975WX
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X	88.51%	91.79%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.6	65W	Ryzen 5 5600X
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X	86.85%	91.72%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.7	105W	Ryzen 7 5800X
Intel Core i7-11700K	86.3%	92.0%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	125W	Core i7-11700K
AMD Threadripper Pro 5995WX	86.12%	84.79%	Zen 3	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.5	280W	Threadripper Pro 5995WX
Intel Core i9-10900K	85.01%	91.5%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.7 / 5.3	125W	Core i9-9900K
Intel Core i9-10850K	84.6%	91.07%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.6 / 5.2	95W	Core i9-10850K
Intel Core i5-11600K	84.06%	90.43%	Rocket Lake	6 / 12	3.9 / 4.9	125W	Core i5-11600K
Intel Core i5-11400	80.98%	87.77%	Rocket Lake	6 / 12	2.6 / 4.4	65W	Core i5-11400
Intel Core i7-10700K	80.66%	87.88%	Comet Lake	8 / 16	3.8 / 5.1	125W	Core i7-10700K
Intel Core i9-10980XE	78.04%	84.04%	Cascade Lake-X	18 / 36	3.0 / 4.8	165W	Core i9-10980XE
Intel W-3175X	76.93%	82.58%	Skylake	28 / 56	3.1 / 4.3	225W	@Newegg
Ryzen 7 5700G*	76.61%	83.1%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.6	65W	N/A
Intel Core i9-9900KS	76.12%	84.85%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	4.0 / 5.0	127W	Intel Core i9-9900KS
Intel Core i7-10700/F	~	~	Comet Lake	8 / 16	2.9 / 4.8	65W	Intel Core i7-10700
Intel Core i5-10600K	75.42%	82.57%	Comet Lake	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.8	125W	@Newegg
Intel Core i7-9700K	73.62%	81.12%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 8	3.6 / 4.9	95W	@Amazon
Intel Core i9-9900K / F	73.41%	84.85%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	95W	Core i9-9900K
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X	72.63%	78.58%	Zen 2	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.7	105W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 3970X	72.44%	77.99%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.7 / 4.5	280W	AMD Threadripper 3970X
AMD Threadripper 3960X	72.07%	77.12%	Zen 2	24 / 48	3.8 / 4.5	280W	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G	71.99%	76.76%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.9 / 4.4	65W	Ryzen 5 5600G
AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT	71.78%	79.28%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.7	105W	@Newegg
AMD Threadripper 3990X	71.68%	77.94%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.9 / 4.3	280W	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X
AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT	71.67%	78.55%	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.7	105W	Ryzen 9 3900XT
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X	~	~	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.6	105W	@Amazon
Intel Core i9-9980XE	~	~	Skylake	18 / 36	4.4 / 4.5	165W	@B&HPhoto
AMD Ryzen 9 3900	~	~	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.1 / 4.3	105W	OEM only
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X	71.43%	79.08%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.4	65W	Ryzen 7 3700X
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X	71.3%	78.67%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.5	105W	Ryzen 7 3800X
AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT	70.62%	77.75%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.5	95W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 5 3600	68.63%	75.59%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i9-7960X	~	~	Skylake	16 / 32	2.8 / 4.2	165W	@Newegg
Intel Core i7-8700K	68.47%	76.41%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.7	95W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X	68.41%	75.60%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.4	95W	@Newegg
AMD Threadripper Pro 3975WX	67.63%	74.42%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.5 / 4.2	280W	Threadripper Pro 3975WX
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X	67.49%	74.6%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 4.3	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i5-9600K	67.06%	75.11%	Coffee Lake-R	6 / 6	3.7 / 4.6	95W	@Newegg
AMD Threadripper Pro 3995WX	66.18%	69.28%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.2	280W	Threadripper Pro 3995WX
Intel Core i5-8600K	65.84%	73.4%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.3	95W	@Newegg
Intel Core i7-8700	65.57%	73.66%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.2 / 4.6	65W	Core i7-8700
Intel Core i7-8086K	65.05%	73.5%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	4.0 / 5.0	95W	Core i7-8086K
Intel Core i5-9400 / i5-9400F	64.85%	72.08%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.9 / 4.1	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i5-8400	63.96%	71.2%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.8 / 4.0	65W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 5 3500X	~	~	Zen 2	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.1	65W	@Newegg
Core i3-10100	61.88%	69.08%	Comet Lake	4 / 8	3.6 / 4.3	65W	Core i3-10100
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	59.19%	66.55%	Zen+	8 / 16	3.7 / 4.3	105W	@Newegg
Ryzen 7 4750G*	58.43%	66.46%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.6	65W	Ryzen 7 4750G
AMD Ryzen 3 3100	57.75%	64.21%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 3.9	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i9-7980XE	~	~	Skylake	18 / 36	2.6 / 4.2	165W	@Amazon
Intel Core i9-7900X	~	~	Skylake	10 / 20	3.3 / 4.3	140W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	57.55%	65.33%	Zen+	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	95W	@Amazon
Intel Core i7-7700K	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 8	4.2 / 4.5	91W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 2990WX (GM)	~	~	Zen+	32 / 64	3.0 / 4.2	250W	@Newegg
Intel Core i7-7820X	~	~	Skylake	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.3	140W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 2950X (GM)	~	~	Zen +	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.4	180W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 2970WX	~	~	Zen +	24 / 48	3.0 / 4.2	250W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 7 2700	~	~	Zen+	8 / 16	3.2 / 4.1	65W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 1900X (GM)	~	~	Zen	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.0	180W	@Amazon
Intel Core i7-7700	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 8	3.6 / 4.2	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 2600	~	~	Zen+	6 / 12	3.4 / 3.9	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i7-7800X	~	~	Skylake	6 / 12	3.5 / 4.0	140W	@Newegg
Intel Core i5-7600K	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.8 / 4.2	91W	@Amazon
AMD Threadripper 1950X (GM)	~	~	Zen	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.0	180W	@Newegg
AMD Threadripper 1920X (GM)	~	~	Zen	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.0	180W	@Amazon
Intel Core i3-9350KF	56.42%	65.19%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0 / 4.6	91W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 3 5300G	55.54%	62.68%	Zen 3	4 / 8	4.0 / 4.2	65W	OEM Only
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X	53.86%	60.83%	Zen	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.0	95W	@Newegg
Intel Core i5-7600	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.5 / 4.1	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i3-8100	~	~	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	3.6 / -	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i5-7500	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.4 / 3.8	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i5-7400	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.0 / 3.5	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X	~	~	Zen	8 / 16	3.8 / 3.9	95W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF	~	~	Zen +	6 / 12	3.2 / 3.6	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 7 1700	~	~	Zen	8 / 16	3.0 / 3.8	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i3-8350K	53.84%	61.82%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0 / -	91W	Core i3 i3-8350K
Intel Core i3-9100	51.96%	60.1%	Coffee Lake-R	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.2	65W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X	49.99%	57.28%	Zen	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.0	95W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 1600	~	~	Zen	6 / 12	3.2 / 3.6	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G	48.81%	55.73%	Zen +	4 / 8	3.7 / 4.2	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i5-7400	~	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.0 / 3.5	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i3-8100	48.43%	59.7%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	3.6 / -	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G	45.96%	52.98%	Zen +	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.0	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G	44.84%	50.67%	Zen+	4 / 8	3.6 / 3.9	65W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X	~	~	Zen	4 / 8	3.5 / 3.7	65W	@Newegg
Intel Core i3-7350K	~	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	4.2 / -	60W	@Newegg
Intel Pentium G5600	~	~	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	54W	@Newegg
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G	42.16%	48.56%	Zen+	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X	~	~	Zen	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W	@Amazon
Intel Core i3-7300	~	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	4.0 / -	51W	@BH&Photo
Intel Pentium G5600	37.52%	44.7%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	54W	@Intel
Intel Pentium G5400	36.57%	43.31%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.7 / -	54W	@Amazon
Intel Core i3-7100	~	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	51W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 1400	~	~	Zen	4 / 8	3.2 / 3.4	65W	@Amazon
Intel Pentium G4620	~	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.7 / -	54W	@Newegg
Intel Pentium G4560	~	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.5 / -	54W	@Newegg
AMD Athlon 3000G	~	~	Zen+	2 / 4	3.5 / -	35W	@Amazon
AMD Athlon 240GE	~	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.5 / -	35W	@Amazon
AMD Athlon 220GE	~	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.4 / -	35W	@Amazon
AMD Athlon 200GE	~	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.2 / -	35W	@Amazon
AMD Ryzen 3 1200	~	~	Zen	4 / 4	3.1 / 3.2	65W	@Amazon
Zhaoxin KaiXian KX-U6780A	~	~	LuJiaZui	8 / 8	2.7 / -	70W	N/A
AMD A10-9700	~	~	Bristol Ridge	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.8	65W	@Newegg

These tests are from our 2022 test bench. We measured performance for the 1080p CPU gaming benchmarks with a geometric mean of Borderlands 3, Hitman 2, Far Cry 5, Project CARS 3, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. We measured performance for the 1440p CPU gaming benchmarks with a geometric mean of Borderlands 3, Project CARS 3, Far Cry 5, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. We conducted these tests in Windows 10.

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy - Windows 10
	Single-Threaded App Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads	Base/Boost GHz	TDP
Intel Core i9-11900K (ABT off/on)	100% / 99.57%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.5 / 5.3	125W
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X	95.31%	Zen 3	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.9	105W
Core i9-12900K DDR5 / DDR4	95.16% / 94.64%	Alder Lake	16 / 24 (8P+8E)	3.2 / 5.2	125 / 241W
Core i7-11700K	94.29%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X	93.69%	Zen 3	12 / 24	3.7 / 4.8	105W
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X	92.84%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.7	105W
Intel Core i5-11600K	92.56% / 89.67%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.9	125W
Intel Core i7-12700K DDR5 / DDR4	91.60%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8P+4E)	3.6 / 4.9	125W / 190W
AMD Threadripper Pro 5975WX	89.25%	Zen 3	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.5	280W
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X	89.19%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.6	65W
Ryzen 7 5700G	88.92%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.4	65W
AMD Threadripper Pro 5995WX	88.48%	Zen 3	64 / 128	3.6 / 4.5	280W
Core i5-12600K DDR4 / DDR5	87.85% / 87.82%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6P+4E)	3.7 / 4.9	125 / 150W
Intel Core i9-10900K	86.68%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.7 / 5.3	125W
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G	85.75%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.9 / 4.4	65W
Intel Core i9-10850K	84.87%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.6 / 5.2	95W
Intel Core i9-9900KS	83.13%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	4.0 / 5.0	127W
Intel Core i5-11400	83.09%	Rocket Lake	6 / 12	2.6 / 4.4	65W
Intel Core i9-9900K	82.63%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	95W
Intel Core i7-10700K	82.31%	Comet Lake	8 / 16	3.8 / 5.1	125W
AMD Ryzen 3 5300G	81.51%	Zen 3	4 / 8	4.0 / 4.2	65W
Intel Core i7-9700K	80.36%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 8	3.6 / 4.9	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT	79.75%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.7	105W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT	79.11%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.5	95W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT	78.86%	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.7	105W
Intel Core i5-10600K	78.79%	Comet Lake	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.	125W
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X	78.37%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.5	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X	78.18%	Zen 2	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.7	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X	77.68%	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.6	105W
Intel Core i7-10700/F	~	Comet Lake	8 / 16	2.9 / 4.8	65W
Ryzen 7 4750G	77.2%	Zen 3	8 /16	3.6 / 4.4	65W
AMD Threadripper 3970X	76.52%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.7 / 4.5	280W
AMD Threadripper 3960X	76.42%	Zen 2	24 / 48	3.8 / 4.5	280W
AMD Threadripper Pro 3975WX	76.36%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.5 / 4.2	280W
Intel Core i7-8700K	76.32%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.7	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X	76.29%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.4	65W
Intel Core i7-8086K	76.21%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	4.0 / 5.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X	75.85%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.4	95W
Intel Core i3-9350KF	75.72%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0 / 4.6	91W
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X	75.62%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 4.3	65W
Intel Core i5-9600K	75.41%	Coffee Lake-R	6 / 6	3.7 / 4.6	95W
Intel Core i9-10980XE	75.24%	Cascade Lake-X	18 / 36	3.0 / 4.8	165W
AMD Threadripper 3990X	75.10%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.9 / 4.3	280W
Intel Core i7-8700	74.66%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.2 / 4.6	65W
AMD Threadripper Pro 3995WX	74.20%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.2	280W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600	73.02%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	65W
Intel Core i9-9980XE	~	Skylake	18 / 36	4.4 / 4.5	165W
Intel Core i7-7700K	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 8	4.2 / 4.5	91W
Intel Core i5-8600K	71.08%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.3	95W
Core i3-10100	70.80%	Coffee Lake	4 / 8	3.6 / 4.3	65W
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	69.53%	Zen+	8 / 16	3.7 / 4.3	105W
Intel Core i3-9100	69.20%	Coffee Lake-R	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.2	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3100	67.74%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 3.9	65W
Intel Core i5-9400 / -9400F	67.67%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.9 / 4.1	65W
Intel Xeon W-3175X	67.51%	Skylake	28 / 56	3.1 / 3.8	225W
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	66.78%	Zen+	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	95W
Intel Core i3-8350K / -8350KF	66.71%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0 / -	91W
Intel Core i5-8400	66.03%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.8 / 4.0	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 3500X	~	Zen 2	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.1	65W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900	~	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.1 / 4.3	65W
Intel Core i3-7100	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	51W
AMD Threadripper 2950X	~	Zen +	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.4	180W
AMD Threadripper 2990WX	~	Zen+	32 / 64	3.0 / 4.2	250W
AMD Threadripper 2970WX	~	Zen +	24 / 48	3.0 / 4.2	250W
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G	64.86%	Zen +	4 / 8	3.7 / 4.2	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X	63.62%	Zen	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X	61.99%	Zen	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.0	95W
Intel Core i5-7400	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.0 / 3.5	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G	60.90%	Zen +	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.0	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G	60.79%	Zen+	4 / 8	3.6 / 3.9	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X	~	Zen	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF	~	Zen	6 / 12	3.2 / 3.6	65W
Intel Pentium G5600	60.13%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	54W
Intel Core i3-8100	60.12%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	3.6 / -	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G	57.09%	Zen	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W
Intel Pentium G5400	56.79%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.7 / -	54W
AMD Athlon 3000G	~	Zen+	2 / 4	3.5 / -	35W
AMD Athlon 220GE	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.4 / -	35W
Intel Pentium G4560	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.5 / -	54W
AMD Athlon 200GE	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.2 / -	35W
AMD A10-9700	~	Bristol Ridge	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.8	65W
Zhaoxin KaiXian KX-U6780A	~	LuJiaZui	8 / 8	2.7 / -	70W

These results are from our 2022 test bench. We calculate the above single-threaded CPU benchmark rankings based on a geometric mean of the Cinebench, POV-Ray, and LAME CPU benchmarks. The most powerful chip gets a 100, and all others are scored relative to it. We conducted these tests in Windows 10.

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings

Legacy: Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2020 - 2022 - Windows 10
	Multi-Threaded App Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads	Base/Boost GHz	TDP
AMD Threadripper Pro 5995WX	112.53%	Zen 3	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.5	280W
AMD Threadripper 3990X	100.0%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.9 / 4.3	280W
AMD Threadripper Pro 3995WX	97.59%	Zen 2	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.2	280W
AMD Threadripper Pro 5975WX	93.14%	Zen 3	32 / 64	3.6 / 4.5	280W
AMD Threadripper Pro 3975WX	82.59%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.5 / 4.2	280W
AMD Threadripper 3970X	75.74%	Zen 2	32 / 64	3.7 / 4.5	280W
AMD Threadripper 3960X	64.76%	Zen 2	24 / 48	3.8 / 4.5	280W
Intel Xeon W-3175X	59.95%	Skylake	28 / 56	3.1 / 4.3	225W
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X	53.58%	Zen 3	16 / 32	3.4 / 4.9	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X	47.32%	Zen 2	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.7	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X	45.89%	Zen 3	12 / 24	3.7 / 4.8	105W
Intel Core i9-10980XE	43.06%	Cascade Lake-X	18 / 36	3.0 / 4.8	165W
Intel Core i9-9980XE	~	Skylake	18 / 36	4.4 / 4.5	165W
AMD Threadripper 2990WX	~	Zen+	32 / 64	3.0 / 4.2	250W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X	38.69%	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.6	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT	38.66%	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.8 / 4.7	105W
Core i9-12900K DDR4 / DDR5	38.39% / 38.11%	Alder Lake	16 / 24 (8P+8E)	3.2 / 5.2	125 / 241W
Intel Core i9-11900K (ABT off/on)	36.01% / 37.07%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.5 / 5.3	125W
AMD Threadripper 2970WX	~	Zen +	24 / 48	3.0 / 4.2	250W
Core i7-11700K	34.26%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	125W
Intel Core i9-10900K	33.79%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.7 / 5.3	125W
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X	33.48%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.7	105W
Intel Core i9-10850K	33.38%	Comet Lake	10 / 20	3.6 / 5.2	95W
AMD Threadripper 2950X	~	Zen +	16 / 32	3.5 / 4.4	180W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900	~	Zen 2	12 / 24	3.1 / 4.3	65W
Ryzen 7 5700G	29.73%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.8 / 4.6	65W
Intel Core i9-9900KS	29.11%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	4.0 / 5.0	127W
Core i7-12700K DDR5 / DDR4	28.77% / 28.77%	Alder Lake	12 / 20 (8P+4E)	2.7 / 3.8	125 / 190W
AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT	28.49%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.7	105W
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X	28.25%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.5	105W
Intel Core i7-10700K	28.17%	Comet Lake	8 / 16	3.8 / 5.1	125W
Intel Core i9-9900K	27.78%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 16	3.6 / 5.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X	27.47%	Zen 2	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.4	65W
Intel Core i5-11600K	26.79%	Rocket Lake	8 / 16	3.9 / 4.9	125W
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X	26.15%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.6	65W
AMD Ryzen 7 4750G	26.06%	Zen 3	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.4	65W
Intel Core i7-10700/F	~	Comet Lake	8 / 16	2.9 / 4.8	65W
Intel Core i5-11400	24.46%	Rocket Lake	6 / 12	2.6 / 4.4	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G	23.33%	Zen 3	6 / 12	3.9 / 4.4	65W
Core i5-12600K DDR4 / DDR5	2308% / 23.07%	Alder Lake	10 / 16 (6P+4E)	3.7 / 4.9	125 / 150W
Intel Core i7-9700K	22.81%	Coffee Lake-R	8 / 8	3.6 / 4.9	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT	22.28%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.5	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X	21.76%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.8 / 4.4	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600	21.41%	Zen 2	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	65W
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	21.59%	Zen+	8 / 16	3.7 / 4.3	105W
Intel Core i5-10600K	20.83%	Comet Lake	6 / 12	4.1 / 4.8	125W
Intel Core i7-8700K	20.23%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.7 / 4.7	95W
Core i7-8700	20.04%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	3.2 / 4.6	65W
Core i7-8086K	19.30%	Coffee Lake	6 / 12	4.0 / 5.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X	19.17%	Zen	8 / 16	3.6 / 4.0	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	16.96%	Zen+	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.2	95W
Intel Core i5-9600K	16.60%	Coffee Lake-R	6 / 6	3.7 / 4.6	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3500X	~	Zen 2	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.1	65W
Intel Core i7-7700K	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 8	4.2 / 4.5	91W
Intel Core i5-8600K	15.93%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	3.6 / 4.3	95W
AMD Ryzen 3 5300G	15.83%	Zen 3	4 / 8	4.0 / 4.2	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X	15.55%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 4.3	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF	~	Zen	6 / 12	3.2 / 3.6	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X	15.16%	Zen	6 / 12	3.6 / 4.0	95W
Intel Core i5-9400 / -9400F	15.04%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.9 / 4.1	65W
Intel Core i5-8400	14.76%	Coffee Lake	6 / 6	2.8 / 4.0	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3100	14.17%	Zen 2	4 / 8	3.8 / 3.9	65W
Core i3-10100	13.37%	Rocket Lake	4 / 8	3.6 / 4.3	65W
Intel Core i3-9350KF	11.76%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0/4.6	91W
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G	11.31%	Zen +	4 / 8	3.7 / 4.2	65W
Intel Core i3-8350K	10.74%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	4.0 / -	91W
Intel Core i3-9100	10.70%	Coffee Lake-R	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.2	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G	10.56%	Zen+	4 / 8	3.6 / 3.9	65W
Intel Core i3-8100	9.61%	Coffee Lake	4 / 4	3.6 / -	65W
Intel Core i5-7400	~	Kaby Lake	4 / 4	3.0 / 3.5	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G	8.66%	Zen +	4 / 4	3.6 / 4.0	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X	~	Zen	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W
Intel Core i3-7100	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	51W
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G	7.99%	Zen	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.7	65W
Intel Pentium G5600	5.43%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.9 / -	54W
AMD Athlon 3000G	~	Zen+	2 / 4	3.5 / -	35W
AMD Athlon 220GE	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.4 / -	35W
Intel Pentium G5400	5.13%	Coffee Lake	2 / 4	3.7 / -	54W
AMD Athlon 200GE	~	Zen	2 / 4	3.2 / -	35W
Intel Pentium G4560	~	Kaby Lake	2 / 4	3.5 / -	54W
AMD A10-9700	~	Bristol Ridge	4 / 4	3.5 / 3.8	65W
Zhaoxin KaiXian KX-U6780A	~	LuJiaZui	8 / 8	2.7 / -	70W

These tests are from our 2022 test bench. The multi-threaded workload column is based on CPU benchmarks performance in Cinebench, POV-ray, vray, Blender (four tests - Koro, Barcellona, Classroom, bmw27), y-cruncher, and Handbrake x264 and x265 workloads. These CPU benchmarks represent performance in productivity-focused applications that tend to require more compute horsepower. The most powerful chip gets a 100, and all others are scored relative to it. We conducted these benchmarks in Windows 10.

Legacy 2023 CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy Test Setup
Hardware
AMD Socket AM4 (400- 500-Series)	AMD Ryzen 2000- 3000- 5000- series processors
	MSI MEG X570 Godlike
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600
Intel LGA 1151 (Z490)	Intel Comet Lake processors
	MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600
AMD Socket AM4 (300-Series)	Ryzen 1000-series processors
	MSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium
	2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667
Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)	Intel Coffee Lake, Kaby Lake processors
	MSI Z270 Gaming M7
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600
Intel LGA 2066	Intel Skylake processors
	MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600
All	Gigabyte GeForce RTX 3090 Eagle
	2TB Intel DC4510 SSD
	EVGA Supernova 1600 T2, 1600W
	Windows 10 Pro version 2004 (build 19041.450)
Cooling	Corsair H115i

Legacy: Pre-2018 Desktop CPU Benchmarks

Recognizing that a lot of older platforms are going to be paired with graphics subsystems multiple generations old, we wanted to define the top of our range to encourage balance between host processing and complementary GPUs. At this point, anyone with a Sandy Bridge-based Core i7 would realize a gain from stepping up to Coffee Lake or Kaby Lake, for example. And putting AMD's top FX CPUs next to a handful of Core i7s and those older Core i5s represents an upgrade to their status.

Currently, our hierarchy consists of 13 total tiers. The bottom half of the chart is largely outdated; you'll notice those CPUs dragging down performance in the latest games, whether you have one of the best graphics cards or not. If you own a CPU in that range, an upgrade could really take your experience to another level.

Really, it's the top five tiers or so that remain viable. And in that top half of the chart, an upgrade is typically worthwhile if it's a least a couple of tiers higher. Otherwise, there's just not enough improvement to warrant the expense of a fresh CPU, motherboard and RAM (not to mention the graphics card and storage solution you'd be considering as well).

Legacy: Pre-2018 Desktop CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy
Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core i7-8700K
Intel Core i9-7900X
Intel Core i9-7960X
Intel Core i9-7980XE
Intel Core i7-8700K
Intel Core i7-7740X
Intel Core i7-7700K
Intel Core i7-7820X	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Intel Core i7-7700	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
Intel Core i5-8400	AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
Intel Core i7-7800X	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Intel Core i7-7700T	AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
Intel Core i7-6950X	AMD Ryzen 7 1700
Intel Core i7-6900K	AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Intel Core i7-6850K	AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Intel Core i7-6800K	AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
Intel Core i7-6700K	AMD Ryzen 5 1400
Intel Core i7 6700	AMD Ryzen 3 1300X
Intel Core i7-5960X	Ryzen 5 2400G
Intel Core i7-5930K
Intel Core i7-5820K
Intel Core i7-5775C
Intel i7-4960X
Intel Core i7-4930K
Intel Core i7-4820K
Intel Core i7-4790K
Intel Core i7-4770K
Intel Core i7-4790
Intel Core i7-4771
Intel Core i7-4770
Intel Core i7-3970X
Intel Core i7-3960X
Intel Core i7-3930K
Intel Core i7-3820
Intel Core i7-3770K
Intel Core i7-3770
Intel Core i5-7640X
Intel Core i5-7600K
Intel Core i5-7600
Intel Core i5-7500
Intel Core i5-7400
Intel Core i5 6600K
Intel Core i5-6600
Intel Core i5-6500
Intel Core i5 6402P
Intel Core i5-6400
Intel Core i5-5675C
Intel Core i5-4690K
Intel Core i5-4670K
Intel Core i5-4590
Intel Core i5-4670
Intel Core i5-4570
Intel BX80646I54460
Intel Core i5-4440
Intel Core i5-4430
Intel Core i5-3570K
Intel Core i5-3570
Intel Core i5-3550

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core i7-990X Extreme
Intel Core i7-980X Extreme
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme
Intel Core i7-2600K
Intel Core i7-2600
Intel Core i7-965
Intel Core i5-3470
Intel Core i5-3450P	Intel Core i7-7700
Intel Core i5-3450	AMD FX-9370
Intel Core i5-3350P	AMD FX-8370
Intel Core i5-3330	AMD FX-8350 w/Wraith
Intel Core i5-2550K	AMD FX-8320
Intel Core i5-2500K	AMD FX-8300
Intel Core i5-2500	AMD FX-8150
Intel Core i5-2450P
Intel Core i5-2400
Intel Core i5-2380P
Intel Core i5-2320
Intel Core i5-2310
Intel Core i5-2300
Intel Core i3-7350K
Intel Core i3-7320
Intel Core i3-7300
Intel Core i3-7100

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core i7-980
Intel Core i7-970
Intel Core i7-960
Intel Core i7-875K
Intel Core i7-870
Intel Core i3 6320
Intel Core i3 6300
Intel Core i3-6100	AMD FX-6350
Intel Core i3 6100T	AMD FX-4350
Intel Core i3-6098P	AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition
Intel Core i3-4360	AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition
Intel Core i3-4350	AMD Phenom II X4 Black Edition 980
Intel Core i3-4340	AMD Phenom II X4 Black Edition 975
Intel Core i3-4170
Intel Core i3-4160
Intel Core i3-4150
Intel Core i3-4130
Intel Core i3-3250
Intel Core i3-3245
Intel Core i3-3240
Intel Core i3-3225
Intel Core i3-3220
Intel Core i3-3210
Intel Core i3-2130
Intel Core i3-2025
Intel Core i3-2120
Intel Core i3-2105
Intel Core i3-2100
Intel Pentium G4620
Intel Pentium G4600
Intel Pentium G4560
Intel Pentium G4500
Intel Pentium G4400

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
	AMD FX-8370E
	AMD FX-8320
	AMD FX-8120
	AMD FX-6300
	AMD FX-6200
	AMD FX-4300
	AMD FX-4170
	AMD Phenom II X6 1075T
Intel Core i7-950	AMD Phenom II X4 970 Black Edition
Intel Core i7-940	AMD Phenom II X4 965
Intel Core i7-930	AMD Phenom II X4 955
Intel Core i7-920	AMD A10-7890K APU
Intel Core i7-860	Intel A10-7870K
Intel Core i5-3220T	AMD A10-7860K
Intel Core i5-2405S	AMD A10-7850K
Intel Core i5-2400S	AMD A10-7800
Intel Core i5-760	AMD A10-7700K
Intel Core i5-750	AMD A10-6800K
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775	AMD A10-6790K
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770	AMD A10-6700
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650	AMD A10-5800K
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650	AMD A10-5700
	Intel A8-7650K
	AMD A8-7600
	AMD A8-6600K
	AMD A8-5600K
	AMD A8-3870K
	AMD A8-3870
	AMD A8-3850
	AMD Athlon X4 880K
	Intel Athlon X4 870K)
	Intel A10-7870K
	AMD Athlon X4 750K
	AMD Athlon X4 740
	AMD Athlon X4 651K
	AMD Athlon X4 645
	AMD Athlon X4 641
	AMD Athlon X4 640

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
	AMD FX-6100
	AMD FX-4130
	AMD FX-4100
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850	AMD Phenom II X6 1055T
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800	AMD Phenom II X6 1045T
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550	AMD Phenom II X4 945
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450	AMD Phenom II X4 940
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400	AMD Phenom II X4 920
Intel Core i5-680	AMD Phenom II X3 740
Intel Core i5-670	AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition
Intel Core i5-661	AMD A8-6500
Intel Core i5-660	AMD A8-5500
Intel Core i5-655K	AMD A6
Intel Core i5-650	AMD A6
Intel Core i3-2120T	AMD A6-3670K
Intel Core i3-2100T	AMD A6-3650
	AMD Athlon II X4 635
	AMD Athlon II X4 630

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Intel Core 2 Duo E8600
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500	AMD Phenom II X4 910
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400	AMD Phenom II X4 910e
Intel Core 2 Duo E7600	AMD Phenom II X4 810
Intel Core i3-550	AMD Athlon II X4 631
Intel Core i3-540	AMD Athlon II X4 620
Intel Core i3-530	AMD Athlon II X3 460
Intel Pentium G3470
Intel Pentium G3460
Intel Pentium G3450
Intel Pentium G3440
Intel Pentium G3430
Intel Pentium G3420
Intel Pentium G3260
Intel Pentium G3258
Intel Pentium G3250
Intel Pentium G3220
Intel Pentium G2130
Intel Pentium G2120
Intel Pentium G2020
Intel Pentium G2010
Intel Pentium G870
Intel Pentium G860
Intel Pentium G850
Intel Pentium G840
Intel Pentium G645
Intel Pentium G640
Intel Pentium G630

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200
Intel Core 2 Duo E8300	AMD Phenom II X4 905e
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200	AMD Phenom II X4 805
Intel Core 2 Duo E8190	AMD Phenom II X3 710
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500	AMD Phenom II X3 705e
Intel Core 2 Duo E7400	AMD Phenom II X2 565 Black Edition
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850	AMD Phenom II X2 560 Black Edition
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750	AMD Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition
Intel Pentium G620	AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition
Intel Celeron G1630	AMD Phenom II X2 545
Intel Celeron G1620	AMD Phenom X4 9950
Intel Celeron G1610	AMD Athlon II X3 455
Intel Celeron G555	AMD Athlon II X3 450
Intel Celeron G550	AMD Athlon II X3 445
Intel Celeron G540	AMD Athlon II X3 440
Intel Celeron G530	AMD Athlon II X3 435
Intel Celeron G3950	AMD Athlon II X3 425
Intel Celeron G3930
Intel Celeron G3930
Intel Celeron G3900

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
	AMD Phenom X4 9850
	AMD Phenom X4 9750
	AMD Phenom X4 9650
Intel Core 2 Duo E7300	AMD Phenom X4 9600
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200	AMD Phenom X3 8850
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700	AMD Phenom X3 8750
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550	AMD Athlon II X2 370K
Intel Core 2 Duo E6540	AMD Athlon II X2 265
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6700	AMD Athlon II X2 260
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6600	AMD Athlon II X2 255
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E650	AMD A6-5500K
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6300	AMD A6
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5800	AMD A4-7300
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5700	AMD A4-6400K
Intel Pentium G9650	AMD A4-6300
	AMD A4-5400K
	AMD A4-5300
	AMD A4-4400
	AMD A4-4000
	AMD A4-3400
	AMD A4-3300
	AMD Sempron 2650
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
	AMD Phenom X4 9550
	AMD Phenom X4 9500
	AMD Phenom X4 9450e
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600	AMD Phenom X4 9350e
Intel Core 2 Duo E6420	AMD Phenom X3 8650
Intel Core 2 Duo E4700	AMD Phenom X3 8600
Intel Core 2 Duo E4600	AMD Phenom X3 8550
Intel Core 2 Duo E4500	AMD Phenom X3 8450e
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5400	AMD Phenom X3 8450
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5300	AMD Phenom X3 8400
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5200	AMD Phenom X3 8250e
Intel Pentium Dual-Core G620T	AMD Athlon II X2 250
	AMD Athlon II X2 245
	AMD Athlon II X2 240
	AMD Athlon X2 7850
	AMD Athlon X2 7750
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
	AMD Phenom X4 9150e
	AMD Phenom X4 9100e
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400	AMD Athlon X2 7550
Intel Core 2 Duo E6320	AMD Athlon X2 7450
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400	AMD Athlon X2 5050e
Intel Core 2 Duo E4300	AMD Athlon X2 4850e/b
Intel Celeron E3300	AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+
	AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300	AMD Athlon X2 6550
Intel Core 2 Duo E5500	AMD Athlon X2 6500
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2220	AMD Athlon X2 4450e/b
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2200	AMD Athlon X2 4600+
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2210	AMD Athlon X2 4400+
Intel Celeron E3200	AMD Athlon X2 4200+
	AMD Athlon X2 BE-2400

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2180	AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+
Intel Celeron 1600	AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+
Intel Celeron G440	AMD Athlon X2 4050e
	AMD Athlon X2 2300 Black Edition

Intel CPUs	AMD CPUs and APUs
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2160
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140
Intel Celeron E1500
Intel Celeron E1400
Intel Celeron E1200

MORE: Best CPUs for Gaming
MORE: AMD vs Intel
MORE: 13th-Gen Raptor Lake All We Know
MORE: Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 All We Know
MORE: How to Overclock a CPU
MORE: How to check CPU Temperature
MORE: All CPUs Content

ASRock H310M-G/M.2 Motherboard Review: Solid, but a Little Expensive

Joe Shields — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:00:00 +0000

The ASRock H310M-G/M.2 Motherboard

ASRock H310M-G/M.2 motherboard ( (Image credit: ASRock))

ASRock’s Micro-ATX H310M-G/M.2 motherboard doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, although few motherboard model names do. But this roughly $120 (£71) board is a well-rounded --though not perfect-- solution for Intel-based builders who don’t plan on overclocking and are looking to save some money over a Z390 alternative.

ASRock places this board on the entry-level side of things, and doesn’t market it specifically at gamers or professionals. But priced priced significantly higher than $100, it’s on the higher side of most of its H310M-based competition.

The ASRock H310M-G/M.2 gives users the basics of a motherboard built on the H310 platform, including support for 9th and 8th generation Intel Core processors, memory support up to 64GB and speeds to DDR4 2666, four SATA3 6Gbps ports and 7.1 channel audio. The board consists of a 5-phase VRM, which will be adequate for any supported CPU, especially since the H310 platform doesn’t support overclocking. Below is a complete list of the H310M-G/M.2’s specifications.

Specifications

Socket	1151
Chipset	H310
Form Factor	ATX
Voltage Regulator	5 Phase
Video Ports	D-Sub, DisplayPort, HDMI
USB Ports	USB 3.1 Gen 1 (5Gbps): 2x Type-AUSB 2.0: 4x Type-A
Network Jacks	(1)
Audio Jacks	(3) Analog
Legacy Ports/Jacks	✗
Other Ports/Jack	✗
PCIe x16	(1) v3.0 x16
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	(2) v2.0 x1
CrossFire/SLI	✗ / ✗
DIMM slots	(2) DDR4
M.2 slots	(1) PCIe 2.0 x4 / SATA (w/ SATA module, SATA3_3 is disabled)
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(4) 6Gb/s
USB Headers	(1) v3.1 Gen1, (2) v2.0
Fan Headers	(3) 4-Pin
Legacy Interfaces	X
Other Interfaces	FP-Audio, RGB-LED, TPM, COM
Diagnostics Panel	✗
Internal Button/Switch	✗ / ✗
SATA Controllers	Integrated
Ethernet Controllers	Intel I219-V
Wi-Fi / Bluetooth	✗
USB Controllers	✗
HD Audio Codec	Realtek ALC887
DDL/DTS Connect	✗ / ✗
Warranty	3 Years

The board comes with a basic set of accessories designed with just enough included to get started, but not much more. You won’t find the extras like stickers and coasters, but most of what you’ll need for a basic build is included:

● Quick Installation Guide

● Support CD

● I/O Shield

● 2x SATA cables

● 1x Screw for M.2 slot

Taking a look at the whole board, the PCB itself is black with a high-density glass fabric PCB design said to reduce the gaps between PCB layers, protecting the motherboard against electrical shorts caused by humidity. Along with black board are black DRAM slots and SATA ports, with the chipset heatsink sporting the only integrated LED illumination onboard--red-colored only. The heatsink on the VRM is grey but looks to have enough surface area to do the job.

The H310M-G/M.2 forgoes any design elements on the PCB. It’s just business here in order to keep costs down and prices reasonably low.

Overall there’s really nothing to get excited about on the aesthetics front, but nothing negative to say unless you really crave integrated RGB LEDs or fancy designs on the PCB. Due to its generic design, the board should fit into many build themes.

Taking a look at the top half of the board, since we do not have a shroud, we can see the tops of the rear IO bits along with the heatsink for the VRM on the left-hand side. Located just above the left bank of the 5-phase VRM is a single 8-pin EPS connector feeding power to the CPU. In the upper-right, we find two fan headers, both 4-pin, capable of controlling through voltage or PWM methods and capable of 1A/12W output.

We won’t spend a lot of time on the VRMs here since the H310 chipset is locked for overclocking, but the 5-phase setup was plenty capable of driving the i3-8350K, a 91W part, without issue during our testing. This board is the only one of the three we used to compare it against that includes a heatsink on the VRM.

On the right side, we see the two DRAM slots capable of supporting up to 64GB, with speeds up to DDR4 2666--again, if you want higher memory speeds, this isn’t the platform for you. To the right of the memory slots is the 24-pin ATX connector as well as a front panel USB 2.0 and USB 3.1 Gen 1 headers.

The bottom left portion of the board contains the Realtek ALC887 audio codec and the ELNA audio caps. In order to enable 7.1 channel audio, users are required to use the HD front panel audio module and enable it through the multi-channel audio feature in the driver.

The Micro-ATX H310M-G/M.2 has one full-length PCIe slot which uses ASRock’s slot-wrapping “steel slot technology.” This cover is said to prevent signal interference and helps support heavier graphics cards. According to the board’s product page, AMD Quad CrossfireX is supported. But unless AMD is about to launch wireless graphics cards or a way of plugging in three extra cards to the single x16 slot here, we’re going to chalk this feature up to an erroneous copy/paste from a higher-end board in ASRock’s lineup. In addition to the full-length slot, there are two x1 size slots flanking the primary GPU slot above and below.

Sitting under the full-length PCIe slot is a single M.2 Key M socket capable of supporting up to a 80mm size module. The socket supports either SATA3 6Gbps or PCIe 2.0 x4 drives. Remember, the H310 chipset does not offer PCIe 3.0 lanes, only a total of 6 PCIe 2.0 lanes. So if a SATA-type M.2 module is installed, SATA port 3 will be disabled.

For SATA storage, the H310M-G/M.2 delivers the chipset’s full complement of four, and they’re located in the bottom-right corner. Unlike the H370 and Z370 platforms, H310 does not support Intel RST SATA (or PCIe) RAID. If running RAID is a requirement, you will need to get an expansion card or a different board on a higher-end platform.

Just below the SATA ports is the third fan header (CHA_FAN2/WP) which doubles as a water pump header. This 4-pin setup is able to output 2A/24W.

Across the bottom are several headers including additional USB headers, front panel audio, and two RGB LED headers (one addressable). The bullet points below list the headers from left to right.

● Front Panel Audio

● TPM connector

● Printer port connector

● COM header

● RGB header

● aRGB header

● USB header

● System Panel header

The rear I/O on this motherboard is made up of three video outputs, D-Sub, DVI-D, and HDMI (1.4) ports for using the integrated GPU, a legacy PS/2 port, four USB 2.0 headers and two USB 3.1 Gen1 (5 Gbps) ports in blue. The Intel I219-V RJ-45 jack sits above a set of USB ports. Last is a 3-plug analog audio stack. Most H310 boards lack USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports/headers, unless the board uses a third-party controller, as this chipset forgoes integrated support.

Image Credits: Tom's Hardware

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software and Firmware

Software

ASRock, like the other board partners, includes several pieces of software. This includes the App Shop, a one-stop shop for downloading applications, BIOS’ and drivers, as well as RGB lighting controls and system status information and control. It’s a comprehensive suite, but typical of board makers these days.

The ASRock Live Update and App Shop is designed to be a single source for downloading, installing, and updating ASRock utilities and drivers from the company’s website. The small-footprint app is split into two sections, Apps and BIOS and drivers where you can download the application or update.

There are several non-ASRock applications in the App section on this page, some of which may be helpful. Here you’ll find Google Chrome, but there are several other games and such that just take up space. The BIOS and Drivers page will list what’s installed or needs to be updated. Once selected, programs will download and drivers will install. I had no issues with this software with limited use.

ASRock’s RGB environment is called Polychrome Sync and includes an ecosystem of supported products that work with ASRock motherboards. On this specific board, the integrated LED is only RED, but the software is able to control compatible devices/peripherals like the Kingston Hyper X Memory used in our test bench.

A-Tuning is ASRock’s overclocking and monitoring application for boards that can overclock. On this chipset, we cannot overclock, so we are left with simple voltage controls for the CPU, DRAM, and chipset.

The System Info tab displays critical system information, including clock speeds, fan speeds and system temperatures, as well as the voltage of the CPU (Vcore) DRAM, and power supply voltages from the main rails (12V, 3.3V, and 5V).

The fans will be managed through the FAN-Tastic Tuning section, which will list all motherboard-attached fans in a dropdown and allow custom control for each. Be sure to run the fan test first so the software knows the min/max speeds of the attached fans.

Firmware

ASRock’s BIOS, like so many others, comes with an advanced mode as well as an easy mode. On this board, after flashing to the latest version (P4.00 at the time of publishing) it starts off in EZ Mode with advanced access executed by pressing F6.

The EZ Mode screen displays a dashboard with various information, including the installed CPU type and speed, total memory installed, along with what slots are used and speed the sticks are running at, storage information, fan status and speed control, as well as system temperatures and boot priority. Within this section, the only options one can edit are the boot priority, as well as the fan setting (Silent, Standard, Performance, Full Speed). Clicking on the tools at the bottom yields access to BIOS flashing as well as FAN-Tastic Tuning for the fans.

Moving into the Advanced Mode is where most of the work will get done, even if overclocking isn’t possible. Like EZ Mode, Advanced has a black background with white writing and blue highlights for this series of board (the company’s Fatal1ty boards are black and white with red highlights). Across the top are several headings for different sections, each with its own set of functionality. You’ll find Main, OC Tweaker, Advanced, Tool, HW Monitor, Security, Boot, and Exit.

The Main heading is informational and gives access to the My Favorite section of the BIOS where you’re able to customize the page with your own frequently used BIOS options.

The OC Tweaker section is where all of the CPU and DRAM overclocking adjustments are found, as well as DRAM timing control and Voltage control. Being a limited platform (and this Core i3 CPU not having Turbo Boost) we do not find any BCLK or CPU multiplier adjustments, only power/current limits as well as the ability to change the DRAM timings.

Inside the Advanced header is where adjustments will be made to the CPU, Chipset, Storage, NVMe, SuperIO and USB configurations are found. Here you can also select either Easy Mode or Advanced to pop up first.

The Tools section holds network configuration information as well as BIOS flashing utilities (instant flash or Internet flash).

H/W Monitor is where you can see system information such as temperatures fan speeds and voltages for the CPU, DRAM, and the main voltages from the power supply. Also found within this section is Fan-Tastic Tuning for fan control. Users are able to control the mode (PWM/DC), what temperature it is based on, as well as delays in ramping the speeds up or down.

Below is an image from inside the fan tuning portion of the BIOS. In this screen we set up fan curves for each fan connected to the BIOS in a basic, though useful GUI.

In all, ASRock’s UEFI worked out well for us, with the options in logical places. And most key options and settings are not found several levels down a rabbit hole of menus.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

We’ll be comparing the ASRock H310M-G/M.2 to similarly priced and appointed boards: In our comparison charts you’ll find the MSI H310M Gaming Plus, and Asus TUF H310M-Plus Gaming, which you’ll soon see reveiws of here. The test system contains different hardware than other reviewers (video card and RAM) as well as an updated W10 64-bit OS (to use the RTX based GPU), so the data is not comparable to other, older reviews of the same chipset.

MSI H310M Gaming Plus

Asus TUF H310M-Plus Gaming

ASRock H310M-G/M.2

Test System Components

CPU	Core i3-8350K
CPU Cooling	CLC 240
Graphics	GeForce RTX 2060 Founders Edition
Memory	Fury DDR4
Power Supply	EVGA G3 750W
Storage	OCZ RD400

Drivers

Sound	Integrated HD audio
Network	Integrated gigabit networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 399.24

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write128K Sequential Read, 128K Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests and Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4K mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0, 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests and Settings
Ashes of the Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920 x 1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920 x 1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi track, RainMedium Preset, no AFUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro: Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920 x 1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920 x 1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark and Final Analysis

All standard benchmarks and power tests are performed using the CPU’s stock frequencies, with all of its power-saving features enabled. We use the XMP settings, as most will do so and not tweak manually. Since XMP is an Intel feature, not all boards will read it properly and may set different timings. But most people will likely set DOCP/XMP and forget it, so that’s the way we test. In this case, setting DOCP ran our sticks at 16-17-17-39 instead of 15-17-17-39 the Gigabyte board ran them at.

Synthetic Benchmarks

Synthetics are a great tool to figure out if a board is running out of spec, as identical settings should produce extremely similar performance results. Advanced memory timings are the one place where motherboard makers can still optimize for either stability or performance though, and those settings also impact Sandra’s bandwidth-intensive Cryptography tests.

In our synthetic set of tests, the ASRock H310M-G/M.2 performed admirably, trading blows with the other two H310M motherboards. All results were within general run variance difference, with no anomalous numbers. This tells us all of the boards ran the same clocks and didn’t throttle in our testing. (This CPU does not have Turbo Boost, so there can’t be a difference due to any multi-core enhancement from the BIOS).

3D Games

Checking in on the games, here we also see parity among the three boards tested.

Timed Applications

Checking in on the timed applications, again we don’t see a difference here between our tested systems.

Overall Performance

Looking at our overall performance results, they are all within 1%, outside of the MS office result on the ASrock board which was 1.7 faster than the other two boards overall. Still, that’s a negligible difference considering the time frames for this test.

Power Consumption

Power consumption results showed little disparity across the board. The idle results are within 2W of each other, with the ASRock board in the middle at 38W, while its load result is 117W.

Final Thoughts

The ASRock H310M-G/M.2 is a competent board at its $120 price point. Although the H310 chipset does not allow for overclocking the CPU or memory, the VRMs were up to the task with the 91W i3-8350K processor used, and the board even has a heatsink on the left bank to keep them cool, unlike the competing Asus TUF H310M-Plus Gaming and MSI H310M Gaming Plus. The board does have integrated LEDs, but they aren’t RGB, so we hope you like red. Any other lighting color will have to come from separate RGB LED strips attached to the on board headers. Asus is the only company in this round of board testing to include RGB illumination on the boards level.

The H310M-G/M.2 gives users a decent feature set, although when comparing it to the similar boards we’ve tested, it falls a bit short, particularly because of pricing. All competing boards we tested include four SATA ports, a single M.2 slot, USB 3.1 Gen 1 ports and single full-length PCIe express slot, which covers the basics. For the most part, the difference between these boards outside of aesthetics is the price. For the ASRock board’s $120 asking price, I would like to have seen Wi-Fi included.

Image Credits: Tom's Hardware

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

MSI H310M Gaming Plus Motherboard Review: Affordable Basics

Joe Shields — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:41:00 +0000

Features and Specifications

MSI H310M Gaming Plus Motherboard ( (Image credit: MSI))

MSI’s $75 / £68 Micro-ATX H310M Gaming Plus offers users a mostly well-equipped solution for those on a tight build budget who don’t not plan on overclocking. The company places this Intel board in its performance gaming lineup, which it says is built for hardcore gamers and PC enthusiasts so they can fully utilize Intel Coffee Lake 8-core processors.

While the marketing rhetoric attempts to make this sound like a premium motherboard, make no mistake: As it’s built around the entry-level H310 chipset, the H310M Gaming Plus is designed for gamers and builders opting for mainstream CPUs who would prefer to spend the majority of their money on other components, like the CPU, graphics, and storage.

The H310M Gaming Plus supports the latest 8th and 9th gen Intel Core, Pentium Gold, and Celeron processors with DDR4 memory support up to 32GB with speeds up to 2666 MHz (the speed limitation here is baked into the chipset). The Micro-ATX board includes a single M.2 slot and the full chipset complement of four SATA ports, along with an Intel-based Gigabit NIC rounding out some of the basic features.

Specifications

Socket	LGA 1151
Chipset	Intel H310
Form Factor	ATX
Voltage Regulator	7 Phases
Video Ports	HDMI 1.4, DVI-D
USB Ports	USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10Gbps): NoneUSB 3.1 Gen 1 (5Gbps): 2x Type-A USB 2.0: 4x Type-A
Network Jacks	(1) Gigabit Ethernet
Audio Jacks	(3) Analog
Legacy Ports/Jacks	✗
Other Ports/Jack	✗
PCIe x16	(1) v3.0 (x16)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	(2) v2.0 (x1)
CrossFire/SLI	✗ / ✗
DIMM slots	(2) DDR4
M.2 slots	(1) PCIe 2.0 x4 / SATA
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(4) 6Gb/s
USB Headers	(1) v3.1 Gen1, (2) v2.0
Fan Headers	(3) 4-Pin
Legacy Interfaces	✗
Other Interfaces	FP-Audio, ARGB, RGB-LED, TPM, COM
Diagnostics Panel	✗
Internal Button/Switch	✗ / ✗
SATA Controllers	Integrated
Ethernet Controllers	Intel I219-V
Wi-Fi / Bluetooth	✗
USB Controllers	✗
HD Audio Codec	Realtek ALC887
DDL/DTS Connect	✗ / ✗
Warranty	3 Years

Accessory stacks on the budget end typically come with just the basics needed to get the PC up and running, and the H310M Gaming Plus follows that trend. Below is a list of all included accessories.

Quick Installation Guide
Support CD
I/O Shield
2x SATA cables
1x Screw for M.2 slot

The Gaming Plus motherboards from MSI typically run with a black and red theme and the H310M Gaming Plus is no different. The board features a black PCB with red lines meandering their way from the top, through the middle to the chipset and finally stopping at the end of the board by the audio section. Other red highlights on the board include the two DRAM slots, coloring on the chipset heatsink, as well as the line separating the audio bits from the rest of the motherboard. That audio line is the only aesthetic LED on this mode (red only, controlled through Mystic Light application). The board also does without VRM heatsinks or a shroud to cover the rear IO bits.

Overall, the H310M Gaming Plus looks like most others of this class: more simple and functional than pleasing to the eye. That’s of course in large part to keep costs in check. While the board is certainly not an eyesore, the black and red theme along with a lack of RGB LEDs can limit the ability to match with a build theme, since the colors cannot be changed. But given the price, the lack of RGB is pretty much expected.

Starting on top we can see the no-frills motherboard in its “naked” glory. Exposed is the top of the rear IO area along with the exposed VRMs. Sending power to the CPU is a single 8-pin EPS connector at the top. MSI lists the board as 7-phase and from the looks of things is split into 4+2+1 (CPU, SOC, Memory). MSI says this board will support up to six-core Coffee Lake CPUs, and it handled our 91W i3-8350K without issue. But don’t expect to drop in an eight-core i7 or an i9--not that we’d expect users to pair a $400-$500 CPU with a $75 board, but people have certainly attempted stranger things in the past.

Also located up top are the only two fan headers here, CPU_Fan1 and SYS_Fan1, which are able to control DC and PWM-type fans. I would like to have seen at least one other fan header on the board, as even with smaller Micro-ATX style cases, more than two fans are common--and plenty of cases come with two fans up front and an exhaust at the back.

To the right of those headers are the two red DRAM slots which lock in the memory with one side. The slots hold up to 32GB of ram with speeds up to 2666 Mhz. The board uses MSI’s DDR Boost topology, although it’s doubtful this helps much on a chipset where running past JEDEC speeds isn’t possible.

The far-right side of the board is where we find the 24-pin ATX connector and a front-panel USB 3.1 header, along with two of the four SATA ports. Last, in the upper-right is the EZ debug LED which lights up during the POST process. If there is an issue on POST with the CPU, DRAM, VGA, or boot drive, the LED will stay lit, helping narrow down possible issues.

On the bottom half of the board, the left side houses Realtek ALC887 chip along with the Chemicon audio caps. We can see the line separating the audio bits from the rest of the board. The PCB also separates the left and right audio channels into different layers for improved sound quality, according to MSI.

The PCIe area consists of a single CPU-sourced full-length x16 slot covered in MSI’s Steel Armor reinforcement said to protect VGA cards against bending and EMI. Below that are two x1 size slots that get their bandwidth from the H310 chipset.

The single M.2 slot is located just above the full-length PCIe slot and supports up to 80mm (2080 size) M.2 modules. The slot supports full-speed SATA (6Gbps) and PCIe 2.0 x4 speeds, which is effectively half the bandwidth of NVMe slots found on most pricier motherboards. This bandwidth limitation should limit only very fast PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe drives, but know it can be a bottleneck if high-end NVMe based storage is your part list.

After skipping over the chipset heatsink, we find the other two SATA ports hanging out in the bottom-right corner in a vertical orientation, separated from the other two SATA ports a few inches above. If you need RAID capabilities, you’ll have to get an add-in-card (or just opt for a higher-end motherboard) since the H310 chipset does not support RAID natively.

Across the bottom are several headers, including additional USB headers, front panel audio, and an RGB LED header. The bullet points below list the headers from left to right.

Front Panel audio
4-pin LED header
COM header
USB 2.0 header
Front Panel header(s)
TPM header

On the business end of the motherboard, the rear IO area, are four USB 2.0 and two USB 3.1 Gen1 (USB 3.0) ports,a s well as the refuses-to-die PS/2 connector for that prehistoric keyboard and mouse. Video outputs (which work only when using a CPU with an integrated GPU) consist of an HDMI port and DVI-D port. Audio connectivity is handled by a set of three analog audio jacks.

Overall, this is a decent set of connectivity, although I would like to see a USB Type-C port even if it is running at USB 3.1 Gen1 (5 Gbps) speeds.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software and Firmware

MSI motherboards include a long list of software designed to maximize the features of the company’s hardware. Like other board partners, there is a mix of monitoring and overclocking tools, gaming applications, audio suites, as well as App Manager software.

MSI’s App Manager presents users with a dashboard listing the major applications, including the Command Center, Live Update 6, Mystic Light, Gaming APP, Gaming LAN Manager, and more. While connected to the internet, simply click on the icon and the application will be downloaded and installed on your system.

The Live Update 6 application serves as a complementary piece to the App Manager where the update application is able to scan for and update software, drivers, BIOS, and other firmware. The intuitive app will periodically scan (once a week by default) the MSI site for the latest versions and notify the user id there’s a new update available.

Although the H310M Gaming Plus does not include RGB LEDs, you are able to control how the red LEDs are displayed through the Mystic Light 3 application. If you have any other devices attached to the motherboard through the RGB header (or compatible RAM, etc.), the application will control any Mystic Light supported devices also.

Last up is the MSI Command Center, which serves as a monitoring, fan control, and overclocking application in one. Since the board we are dealing with is based on the H310 chipset, overclocking is not possible, however DRAM and PCH voltage can be controlled. The application can be used to change memory timings, though we recommend doing this within the BIOS anyway.

Command Center has a real-time onboard temperature sensor control, which displays the integrated sensors (in this case, CPU core and socket, as well as the system/motherboard) as well as the current fan speeds.

Fan speed control is quite easy to adjust and handled by a simple dial that lists fan speed in percent while in manual mode. The smart mode allows you to set custom curves for each header. For best results, be sure to run the fan tuner in order for the software to learn the minimum fan speed so you can work with the appropriate curves.

Firmware

MSI’s BIOSes are set up a bit different than other board partners. We’re all used to a BIOS with different headings across the top. Here though, the different sections/headings are located on the left and right sides with system information located across the top. It’s a unique design which sets it apart from other boards.

The overall color and theme will vary by board type. But in this case with a gaming-focused board, we see a black background with red highlights and white/grey writing. Maneuvering around within the BIOS was simple and intuitive.

The MSI BIOS has an Easy and Advanced modes like the other AIBs do. By default the BIOS we are using (v1.60, the latest at the time of writing) defaults to advanced mode. When switching to Easy Mode, the bottom portion with the sections/headings is replaced by a more informational screen covering the CPU, memory, storage, and fan information, which can be selected on the left side. Across the bottom, you can access M-Flash, Favorites, or the Hardware Monitor as well as enable and disabling the audio controller and set HDD modes (AHCI/Optane). Boot order can be changed from here as well using the icons up top.

Stepping into the Advanced Mode is where most of the work will get done, regardless if it isn’t overclocking. In this mode, the top displays the same information mentioned above. The bottom portion is where we see the sections on each side. We have Settings, OC, and M-Flash on the left, while OC Profile, Hardware Monitor, and Board Explorer are on the right. Like Easy mode, users are able to adjust the boot order from here as well as set XMP profiles (although again, you can’t go past the JEDEC spec of 2666 MHz, since the H31 chipset does not overclock).

Within the Settings section, you’ll find five sub-sections, including System Status, Advanced, Boot, Security, and Save and Exit. Here users can dig down in the advanced subheading to change PCI subsystem settings, ACPI, integrated peripherals and graphics configuration, USB and Super IO configuration as well as power management and windows OS setups. You can also secure erase a drive from here as well.

Inside the OC Section is where users are able to adjust any system parameters including memory speed, timings and voltages. Typically we would spend more time in this section but since the chipset doesn’t allow overclocking, we’ll leave it at that high level.

The M-Flash section allows you to flash the BIOS through a file located on a drive, or through the internet. I used the flashing function through a file on a USB drive without issue.

The OC Profile section functions as the name implies. In this case you would be saving other parameters that were set, instead of BCLK, CPU Multiplier, or voltage.

Hardware Monitor is where you’ll find system information like temperatures, fan speeds and voltages for the CPU and the main voltages from the power supply. Also found within this section is fan control with a nice GUI that pops up showing temps and the existing fan curve for the selected device. Users are able to control the mode (PWM/DC) and what temperature threshold it’s based around. There isn’t a delay/hysteresis setting here as we found in the ASRock board which can be helpful to tame fans ramping up and down too frequently.

The Board Explorer section displays a picture of the motherboard and anything connected to the headers, socket, PCIe and M.2 slots, DRAM slots, as well as the rear IO. It's a convenient visual to see what is attached to your system.

Overall, I like MSI’s firmware layout. All the major options can be found without digging too deep into subheadings and losing your way. Both cursor and mouse movement also worked smoothly and without issue.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

Comparison Products

ASRock H310M-G/M.2

Asus TUF H310M-Plus Gaming

MSI H310M Gaming Plus

We’ll compare the MSI H310M Gaming Plus to similarly priced and appointed boards, the ASRock H310M-G/M.2 and the Asus TUF H310M-Plus Gaming, which we’re also working on reviewing. The test system for this round of boards contains different hardware than other reviewers (video card and RAM) as well as an updated W10 64-bit OS (to use the RTX based GPU), so the data is not comparable to other reviews of the same chipset.

Test System Components

CPU	Core i3-8350K
Memory	Fury DDR4
Graphics	GeForce RTX 2060 Founders Edition
SSD	OCZ RD400
Cooler	CLC 240
PSU	EVGA G3 750W
Sound	Integrated HD audio
Network	Integrated gigabit networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 419.67

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write128K Sequential Read, 128K Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests and Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4K mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0, 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests and Settings
*Ashes of the Singularity*	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920 x 1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920 x 1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
*F1 2015*	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi track, RainMedium Preset, no AFUltra High Preset, 16x AF
*Metro: Last Light Redux*	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920 x 1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920 x 1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
*The Talos Principle*	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark and Final Analysis

All standard benchmarks and power tests are performed using the CPU’s stock frequencies, with all of its power-saving features enabled. We use the XMP settings in general, as most will do so and not tweak manually. Since XMP is an Intel feature, not all boards will read it properly and may set different timings. But most people will likely set DOCP/XMP and forget it, so that’s the way we test.

Synthetic Benchmarks

In our synthetic set of tests, the MSI H310M Gaming Plus performed well, trading blows with the other two H310M motherboards. All results were within general run variance difference, with no anomalous results. This tells us all of the boards ran the same clocks and didn’t throttle in our testing (this CPU does not have boost so there can’t be a difference due to any multi-core enhancement from the BIOS).

3D Games

Taking a quick look at our gaming results, here we also see fairly consistent results among the three boards tested. The MSI board did manage to run almost two FPS faster (~3%) in Ashes of the Singularity, otherwise there was no appreciable difference.

Timed Applications

In our timed applications, we don’t see any major differences between our tested systems.

Overall Performance

Looking at our overall performance results, they are all within 1%, outside of the Microsoft office result on the ASrock board, which managed to be 1.7% faster than the other two boards overall. Still, that’s a negligible difference considering the time frames for this testing.

Power Consumption

Power consumption results showed little disparity across the board. The idle results are within 2W of each other, with the MSI using 39W idle and 117W at load, within 3W of the ASUS board, which uses the least power at 114W.

Final Thoughts

The MSI H310M Gaming Plus is a competent board at the $75 price point, when comparing it to the other boards we gathered data on. The features are there and the price is right. MSI’s board offers similar features to the ASRock H310M-G/M.2 board we reviewed earlier, but at a lower price. Remember, all of the tested boards include four SATA ports, a single M.2 slot, USB 3.1 Gen 1 ports and single full-length PCIe express slot, which covers the basics.

For the most part, the difference between these is how they look, plus on-board headers (fans, USB). Comparing the two boards which cost the same, the MSI and Asus TUF H310M-Plus, both offer two fan headers and the same USB port count and type. So it is really a toss up. To that end, the odd man out here with the boards we tested is going to be the ASRock simply due to price as what it may have over these two isn’t worth the price.

The M310M Gaming Plus itself is a good option to start a Micro-ATX budget build as it has all the basics and the features you should expect at the price point. About the only thing missing, which is missing from all of the boards, is USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) support and perhaps Wi-Fi capability. If needed, both can be added via add in cards (or via USB for Wi-Fi). But overall, the MSI H310M Gaming Plus is a capable board with a price that’s easy to get behind.

Image Credits: Tom's Hardware

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Asus ROG Strix B360-G Gaming Micro-ATX Motherboard Review: Solid but Spendy

Thomas Soderstrom — Sat, 06 Oct 2018 01:00:00 +0000

Features & Layout

The Strix B360-G Gaming shares little if anything in design with its Z370 sibling. That may be due to the integrated USB 3.1 Gen2 support of the newer H370 and B360 chipsets, which no longer require the board to have a spot for an additional controller integrated circuit (IC), yet we’ve seen other manufacturers at least share circuit boards between various models and exclude built-in features via the transition. Asus wasn’t having any of that in this ROG-series board, though.

Specifications

Socket	LGA 1151
Chipset	Intel B360
Form Factor	Micro ATX
Voltage Regulator	6 Phases
Video Ports	DVI-D, HDMI 1.4b
USB Ports	10Gbps: (2) Type A 5Gb/s: (2) Type A; (2) USB 2.0
Network Jacks	Gigabit Ethernet
Audio Jacks	(5) Analog, (1) Digital Out
Legacy Ports/Jacks	(1) PS/2
Other Ports/Jack	✗
PCIe x16	(2) v3.0 (x16/x4) (Shares upper PCIe x1)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	(2) v3.0 (Upper x1 shared w/4-lane x16 slot)
CrossFire/SLI	2x / ✗
DIMM slots	(4) DDR4
M.2 slots	(1) PCIe 3.0 x4 /, (1) PCIe 3.0 x2 / SATA
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(6) 6Gb/s
USB Headers	(1) v3.0, (2) v2.0
Fan Headers	(4) 4-Pin
Legacy Interfaces	Serial COM Port
Other Interfaces	FP-Audio, RGB-LED, TPM
Diagnostics Panel	✗
Internal Button/Switch	✗ / ✗
SATA Controllers	Integrated
Ethernet Controllers	WGI219V PHY
Wi-Fi / Bluetooth	✗ / ✗
USB Controllers	Integrated
HD Audio Codec	ALC1220
DDL/DTS Connect	✗
Warranty	3 Years

Features & Layout

The Strix B360-G loses only six of the parent (Z370) chipset’s 30 HSIO lanes, but it only allows 12 of the remaining 24 lanes to be directed to PCIe. That needn’t be a problem for any Micro ATX board, since the CPU’s separate PCIe controller feeds the graphics card. We count four lanes for its bottom x16-length PCIe slot, one more lane for the lower PCIe x1 slots, four lanes for the primary M.2 adapter, and two lanes for the secondary M.2 adapter. Activating the upper x1 slot requires kicking the four-lane bottom slot down to x2 mode, but we can’t imagine any gamers using the x1 slot that’s normally covered by the cooler of their graphics card.

USB 2.0 doesn’t require HSIO access, but is still useful for keyboards and mice, so Asus includes two of those on the rear I/O panel, along with a PS/2 port for people who prefer true legacy peripherals. The two USB 3.1 Gen1 (aka USB 3.0) and two USB 3.1 Gen2 (10Gb/s) ports each get one HSIO, and the Intel network circuitry also requires an HSIO, which brings the I/O panel to five of the remaining 13 available HSIO resources. And the rest of the panel is filled out with DVI-D and HDMI 1.4b for the CPU’s integrated GPU, along with five analog stereo jacks and a digital optical S/PDIF output.

Internally we find six SATA ports and a two-port USB 3.0 header consuming the remaining eight HSIO lanes. So far, the only snag we’ve found is that sharing between the upper PCIe x1 slot and four-lane x16-length bottom slot isn’t documented, either within the manual or on the Strix B360-G Gaming’s web page.

The upper PCIe x16 slot has reinforcement pins at its corners to help prevent a graphics card from tearing the slot from the motherboard during rough handling of the finished build, but the lower x16-length slot doesn’t. The lower slot’s position would require a five-slot case for the builder to install a graphics card with a double-slot cooler, but since it has only four pathways, most builders probably won’t be putting a heavy graphics card there anyway. So the “Crossfire” notion is more theoretical than practical.

Should you choose to put a dual-slot card in the bottom slot anyway, you’ll be happy to see that Asus moved the USB 3.0 internal header up the front edge of the board to place it above the top card, where the stiff cable can’t interfere with anything mounted onto the board. The four perpendicular-facing SATA ports are above that for similar consideration, and the bottom two SATA ports face forward to tuck those cables under the leading edge of any installed cards.

The lower edge features front-panel audio, an RGB LED strip, a 9-pin Serial port, TPM headers, two dual-port USB 2.0 headers, one fan header, and front-panel button/LED headers. Asus has adopted the Intel (circa 1999) nine-pin front-panel connector layout, adding 3-pin-spacing power LED and legacy beep code speaker pins to the right of that standard nine-pin grouping. While the Strix B360-G Gaming supports external RGB strips, its only onboard accent lighting is a row of red LEDs behind a translucent path between the ALC1220 audio codec and I/O panel connectors.

Integrating the I/O shield onto the I/O panel leaves Asus even fewer components for the Strix B360-G Gaming’s installation kit. You get two SATA cables, a pack of cable ties, and M.2 mounting screws. That's it for in-box hardware accessories, but buyers also get a full printed manual, driver and application disc, sticker pack, and a souvenir door card.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

The Strix B360-G Gaming includes the same Ramcache II, EZ Update, Sonic Studio III and GameFirst IV software recently detailed in our Strix Z370-G Gaming review. The same version of Ai Suite 3 is also present, but options are reduced to match the non-overclockable B360-based platform and our non-turbo-boost CPU. There is no nagging flag that tells users to run 5-way Optimization, because some of those “ways” involve overclocking. The Dual Intelligent Processors 5 and TPU menu items disappear here as well, taking Turbo App and Digi+ VRM with them.

The lack of onboard RGB lighting leaves only the Strix B360-G Gaming’s RGB header for the Aura suite to address, in opposition to the Strix Z370-G Gaming’s inclusion of on-board RGB but no header. The software also addresses most brands of RGB memory. But you'll of course want to consult the full list of supported memory before buying.

Firmware

Surprisingly, the Strix B360-G Gaming is the first Asus board we’ve seen in a while to use Advanced Mode as the default GUI for its UEFI. Not much can be changed regarding clocks, since the chipset limits the RAM to DDR4-2666 at best, and our Core i3-8350K knocks that cap down to an even lower DDR4-2400. Voltage levels can be altered, but to little effect without overclocking capability (though users are welcome to chase higher efficiency. Underclocking is even an option for anyone who wants to shoot for extremely-low power use or low heat.

Setting XMP mode didn’t overcome the CPU’s ratio limit, but the Strix B360-G Gaming bumped our DRAM up to 1.376V (measured) at its 1.350V setting, which hardly seemed appropriate given the low data rate. Users of higher-end processors can also use this menu to boost CPU core/cache current limits for longer up-time at the CPU’s highest rated Intel Turbo Boost ratio.

A seemingly endless array of memory timing, skew, RTL, IOL, and training adjustments allow true memory fanatics to make the best of a difficult situation via manual latency adjustments.

The Strix B360-G Gaming has default CPU Load-Line Calibration, which helps prevent voltage “droop” under heavy software loads, but this typically isn’t needed at stock frequencies. Changing from “Auto” to “Default” saved us a few watts. Core i7 users will want to pay attention to the board’s current capability and Turbo Mode Package Power Limits since, as with the previously-mentioned core/cache limit, increasing those can help the processor hold its maximum Intel Turbo Boost ratio under extra-heavy software loads.

The Strix B60-G Gaming supports both PWM and voltage-based fan control on all four headers, and these can be configured from either a table or automatically.

The Tools menu includes a special firmware flashing mode that accepts both local files (via USB flash drives) and network files (via Asus server polling), Secure Erase for compatible SSDs, storage for up to eight different firmware configurations as user profiles, along with the ability to import and export those files using a USB flash drive. Users can also choose to set the next UEFI entry GUI to EZ Mode from Advanced Mode’s Boot menu, or hit F7 to access that alternative interface.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

We picked our primary components (the CPU, graphics, and DRAM) based primarily upon a balance of performance and price. Intel’s Core i3-8350K offers four cores at 4GHz, and the fact that it’s unlocked hasn’t escaped us. It’s unlikely anyone will crack one of these locked platforms, but stranger things have happened. And we’d hate to be stuck with a locked processor if clock speed adjustments suddenly became available.

We also chose the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti for its performance-to-price ratio. The two-fan cooler of MSI’s Gaming X version gives us reduced noise while still fitting within two slots.

As for memory, we decided to stick with RAM we had on-hand. G.Skill’s Ripjaws V 3200 barely carries any price premium over budget sticks, and it could allow overclocking if anyone were to unlock the platform. Our CPU supports DDR4-2400 at both 9x 133MHz and 12x 100MHz settings. And if anyone ever figures out how to fool the board into using the higher 12x multiplier with the higher 133MHz base clock, the resulting 1600MHz frequency would get us to DDR4-3200.

The Core i3-8350k doesn't include a cooler, so we used a Noctua NH-U12 because it was handily close to our test bench.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Comparison Products

Asus ROG Strix B360-G Gaming

MSI B360M Mortar

ASRock H370M Pro4

Since they're both Micro ATX and based on the B360 PCH, the Asus ROG Strix B360-G Gaming competes most closely to MSI's B360M Mortar, ASRock's Micro ATX H370M Pro4 and full-ATX B360 Gaming K4 fill the remainder of these charts.

Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613 Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0 Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21 CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write 128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMO OpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8 Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3 Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9 Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68a BMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02 THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command-line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64 PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit) PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of the Singularity	Version 1.31.21360 High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAA Crazy Preset - 1920x1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, Rain Medium Preset, No AF Ultra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64 High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AF Very High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252 Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AF Ultra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

Intel has locked down both the CPU multiplier and its BCLK settings when a compatible CPU is mounted to a B360 or H370 chipset, and nobody has produced a workaround. That leaves memory and power saving setting manipulation as the only potential pathways to performance optimization, and we enable the CPU’s built-in power-savings features during our tests. There is, however, room for any manufacturer to lose here, but only via poor configuration choices.

Synthetic Benchmarks

While the competing B360M Mortar stumbles a couple times in both 3DMark and PCMark, ASRock’s H370M Pro4 shows us what we should be looking at from a Micro ATX board. The company's B360 Gaming K4 shows us what we should expect from the B360 chipset, and the Strix B60-G Gaming is roughly equal to both.

Our remaining synthetic benchmarks show no issue with the competing B360M Mortar, giving us hope for a perfect match between the B360-G Gaming and B360M Mortar in real-world benchmarks.

3D Games

The B360M Mortar edges out Asus’s ROG Strix B360-G Gaming through most of our gaming tests, but by a trivial amount. While it’s hard to believe that MSI could have “gotten lucky” that many times in a row, it’s also hard to believe that anyone would care about differences of less than 1 frame per second.

Timed Applications

Though the B360-G Gaming appears to have a similarly insignificant lead in many of our timed tests, it took a big stumble in PowerPoint. We retested and came up with the same result, but we’re not sure whether the cause might be a driver issue or a background application.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

The Strix B360-G Gaming stays near the top of our power consumption chart, which means it will certainly be near the bottom of the efficiency chart, even after we changed its CPU Load-Line Calibration setting from the power hungry “Auto” to the more-conservative “Default” mode.

We were somewhat surprised to see the amount of performance difference between the B360-G Gaming and B360M Mortar, with the MSI board leading by nearly a percent. While that’s still not enough to sway most buyers, it adds to an efficiency difference of roughly 8%.

Final Analysis

Perhaps the biggest surprise in today’s comparison is that the better-featured H370 chipset is present on the lowest-priced board, ASRock’s H370M Pro4, while the cheaper B360 chipset is found on the costlier boards. We still need to consider the value of overall features however.

Asus equips its Strix board with the higher-model ALC1220 audio codec, while both the B360M Mortar and H370M Pro4 have only the ALC892. The B360M Mortar has a front-panel USB 3.1 Gen2 header for 10Gb/s USB 3.1 Gen2 support, but getting resources for that port forced MSI to give up two SATA ports. The H370M Pro4 gains a CNVi-compliant Key-E slot (for a fast Wi-Fi module), but loses the RGB header offered by both Asus and MSI. On the other hand, while the Strix B360-G Gaming has two Type A ports to address USB 3.1 Gen2 on the I/O panel, both the B360M Mortar and H370M Pro4 offer the more current combination of one Type-C and one Type-A port.

In the end, it’s only the price difference that hurts Asus’s ROG Strix B360-G Gaming. And whether or not you’re willing to pay extra for the higher-model audio codec might well be decided by your need for other connectors. With so many similarly performing options in this space, you'll want to pay careful attention to features you want, and those you're willing to sacrifice to save some money.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

ASRock H370M Pro4 Micro ATX Motherboard: Best Cheap 1151?

Thomas Soderstrom — Tue, 04 Sep 2018 13:00:01 +0000

Features and Specifications

Priced around $80 and recently spotted for a mere $67, the ASRock H370M Pro4 brings Intel’s more-advanced H370 feature set to buyers who thought they could only afford a lesser B360 model. ASRock splits the H370’s extra HSIO (high-speed input/output) pathways across two rear-panel USB 3.0 ports and two internal SATA headers, leaving us only to question whether the presence of two front-panel USB 3.0 headers (supporting four ports) is more valuable than the combination of a single USB 3.1 and single USB 3.0 header (supporting three ports). While your preference may hinge on the type of case you have, ours is dictated by the extra I/O panel and SATA connectivity we need.

Layout & Features

It looks familiar, but the H370M Pro4 has little in common with the recently-reviewed Z370M Pro4. Sure there’s the 10-phase voltage regulator, the dual M.2 storage interfaces, and an I/O panel with all the same connectors in all the same places. And heck, even the Intel i219V Gigabit PHY and older Realtek ALC892 codec are there from the Z370M model, but finer details reveal that this mobo is based on a completely different circuit board.

You may have noticed the M.2 Key-E/CNVi Wi-Fi card expansion slot in the above photo, where the Z370 board had its RTC (aka CMOS) battery. The older Z370 didn’t support Intel’s new 1.73Gb/s CNVi codec, and the Z370 board didn’t even have solder points for this connector. Two of the I/O panel’s connectors are also upgraded to H370’s integrated USB 3.1 Gen2 (10Gb/s), whereas the Z370 version of this board fed those same ports with slower 5Gb/s interfaces.

The H370 still has fewer bandwidth resources than had Z370, and the Wi-Fi slot’s compatibility with Key-E devices required a USB 2.0 port. ASRock stole it from one of the two USB 2.0 headers along the H370M Pro4’s bottom edge, making the “two” front panel headers technically 1.5 (one standard dual-port and one single-row single-port). We still see two USB 3.0 front panel headers near the center of the front edge though, so users of newer cases will at least have the connectors they need.

The H370M Pro4 loses the Z370M Pro4’s Parallel port (no big loss) and has a blank row of solder points for where an RGB header on a higher-model board. The H370M Pro4 keeps the undocumented BIOS_PH header near the lower front corner, along with the Intel-style front-panel button/LED group, the separate header above that group for legacy beep code speaker and chassis intrusion switch connectors, followed by a pair of CLR_CMOS pins at the front edge.

Both PCIe x1 slots are open-ended to accept longer (x4, x8, x16) cards, but builders know that the first slot is typically covered by the cooler of any added-in graphics card. That’s just as well for most users, since if you use that slot, it steals a pathway from the bottom slot. The bottom slot only has four lanes to begin with, and gets knocked all the way down to x2 mode when a card is added to the upper x1 slot.

Specifications

Socket	LGA 1151
Chipset	Intel H370
Form Factor	Micro ATXc
Voltage Regulator	10 Phases
Video Ports	VGA, DVI-D, HDMI 1.4
USB Ports	10Gbps: (1) Type-C, (1) Type A 5Gb/s: (2) Type A; (2) USB 2.0
Network Jacks	Gigabit Ethernet
Audio Jacks	(3) Analog
Legacy Ports/Jacks	(2) PS/2
Other Ports/Jack	✗
PCIe x16	(2) v3.0 (x16/x4) (Shares upper PCIe x1)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	(2) v3.0 (Upper x1 shared w/4-lane x16 slot)
CrossFire/SLI	2x / ✗
DIMM slots	(4) DDR4
M.2 slots	(1) PCIe 3.0 x4 /, (1) PCIe 3.0 x1 / SATA, (1) Key-E/CNVi (SATA consumes port 1)
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(6) 6Gb/s (Port 1 shared w/M.2-2)
USB Headers	(2) v3.0, (1) v2.0, (1) Single-port v2.0
Fan Headers	(4) 4-Pin
Legacy Interfaces	Serial COM Port
Other Interfaces	FP-Audio, TPM
Diagnostics Panel	✗
Internal Button/Switch	✗ / ✗
SATA Controllers	Integrated (0/1/5/10)
Ehternet Controllers	WGI219V PHY
Wi-Fi / Bluetooth	✗ / ✗
USB Controllers	Integrated
HD Audio Codec	ALC892
DDL/DTS Connect	✗
Warranty	3 Years

The pathway finagling mentioned above is all due to the H370’s limited HSIO resources, which are also reflected in the lower M.2 storage slots measly PCIe 3.0 x1 interface. Only the upper M.2 slot gets all four lanes. The lower M.2 slot also gets a SATA pathway, but installing a legacy SATA M.2 module will cause the board to disable one of the six traditional SATA ports.

The H370M Pro4’s I/O panel gets three holes for mounting the antenna leads of a Wi-Fi module, though our experience is that this type of mounting is neither easy nor secure. Also included are a user’s manual, two SATA cables, a driver and software installation disc with a copy of the user’s manual, and a foil case badge.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software and Firmware

For support software, the driver disc includes only ASRock App Shop and Restart to UEFI. The former includes ASRock App Charger USB utility, A-Tuning overclocking utility, an ASRock-branded version of cFosSpeed network prioritization called X-Fast Lan, a link to another copy of Restart to UEFI, and a slew of freeware/shareware/trial software that we cropped out of the image. Its second page provides updates for drivers and installed software, while the third page has nothing more than a checkbox for starting with Windows.

ASRock's A-Tuning overclocking software provides access to the voltage settings from firmware, but can’t do much else to alter a locked processor. It also includes a useful fan utility, but this is likewise available in firmware.

Firmware

The H370M Pro4's firmware defaults to ASRock’s EZ Mode GUI, though the default at next entry can be changed within advanced mode. Striking the keyboard’s F6 function key switches between these modes, and both modes include tools for ASRock Instant Flash firmware updating, Internet Flash firmware downloading (to USB flash drive), and Fan-Tastic Tuning manual fan RPM-to-temperature mapping.

Copied from its overclockable boards, ASRock’s OC Tweaker menu includes several registers to store custom firmware settings as user profiles, but overclocking controls are removed.

DRAM frequency is selectable up to DDR4-2666, except for the unlocked Core i3-8350K which imposes an even-lower DDR4-2400 ceiling. A complete set of timing adjustments is also present, and the board is even able to show us XMP values, which poses a problem for us: Intel says it excluded XMP from its lower-cost chipsets, and the XMP setting is missing, but that shouldn’t have prevented any manufacturer from reading XMP tables and applying the timings for, say, low-latency DDR4-2666, since it’s possible for an end user to do the same thing manually.

Voltage control is available, but we hardly see the point in applying over-voltage to a non-overclocked component. The H370M Pro4 also allows users to reduce voltage though, so chasing efficiency is possible.

Two tools available only through the Advanced GUI are a UEFI Tech Service outgoing mail app for support questions, and network configuration to help enable the other tools to work on restricted networks. You’ll still need to access your email from other devices to check for a tech service response.

The H370M Pro4 includes PWM/Voltage fan control mode selection for three of its four fan headers, leaving only the CPU header as PWM-only. That’s a significant upgrade from the Z370M Pro4, which included only one voltage-only header to go with its three PWM-only headers.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

We also chose the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti for its performance-to-price ratio. The two-fan cooler of MSI’s Gaming X version gives us reduced noise while still fitting within two slots.

As for memory, we decided to stick with RAM we had on-hand. G.Skill’s Ripjaws V 3200 barely carries any price premium over budget sticks, and it could allow overclocking if anyone were to unlock the platform. Our CPU supports DDR4-2400 at both 9x 133MHz and 12x 100MHz settings, and if anyone ever figures out how to fool the boardinto using the higher 12x multiplier with the higher 133MHz base clock, the resulting 1600MHz frequency would get us to DDR4-3200.

The Core i3-8350k doesn't include a cooler, so we used a Noctua NH-U12 because it was handily close to our test bench.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Comparison Products

ASRock H370M Pro4

MSI B360M Mortar

ASRock Fatal1ty B360 Gaming K4

Despite the difference in chipsets, the closest competitor to ASRock's H370 Pro4 is MSI's B360M Mortar, due to form factor, features and price. Due to pricing concerns, ASRock's own B360 Gaming K4 and Fatal1ty H370 Performance fill the remainder of these charts.

Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613 Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0 Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21 CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write 128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMO OpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8 Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3 Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9 Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68a BMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02 THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command-line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64 PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit) PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of the Singularity	Version 1.31.21360 High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAA Crazy Preset - 1920x1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, Rain Medium Preset, No AF Ultra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64 High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AF Very High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252 Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AF Ultra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results and Final Analysis

H370 and B360 boards lack overclocking, which makes it far more difficult for motherboard and firmware designers to cheat to secure a fraudulent performance win. There are still things manufacturers can do to keep a processor from throttling back to save energy however, and that’s why we enable all Intel energy-saving settings prior to benchmarks. The technological ideal would be for all boards to perform equally, but then we’d have nothing to discuss.

Synthetic Benchmarks

Synthetic benchmarks are best used as a validation tool, exposing performance abnormalities caused by configuration errors or cheating. The H370M Pro4 leads slightly in a few 3DMark tests where nobody should, but it also sees enough losses that this might be happenstance.

Miniscule leads continue through three of PCMark8’s tests, but the gain over other ASRock boards that also shows up in Sandra Dhrystone merely puts it on par with the B360M Mortar…a board that landed last in PCMark’s Creative test.

3D Games

We’re happy to see that there’s little difference in gaming performance between the two Micro ATX samples, ASRock’s H370M Pro4 and MSI’s B360M Mortar, because any noticeable differences would be exceedingly difficult to explain on a “locked” platform.

Timed Applications

Less is better regarding completion times here. Similar completion times in our mixed workloads gave us hope for the simplest possible analysis, but then the H370M Pro4 pulled ahead in both our Adobe Creative Cloud and MS Office tests. Perhaps the power measurements will enlighten us as to a reason.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

The H370M Pro4 consumes slightly less power at full load compared to our other three samples, leaving us at a loss to explain its 1.4% above-average benchmark results.

Percent averages shown above include the results of all boards we've previously tested in this hardware configuration. Some of the not-shown boards dragged down our performance averages slightly, so that the four boards shown appear to be “above average” performers.

Final Analysis

A performance-to-price chart is handy for things that serve only a single function, but motherboards are packed with features that require further analysis. Oh, and there’s the problem that big performance gains require cheating (via overclocking methods). Fortunately, the later isn’t a significant issue in today’s test.

We’re instead in looking primarily at an incredibly-high value score due to an extremely low price. The H370 chipset stands above the B360 for its additional HSIO (Intel’s flexible high-speed pathways) resources and the extra PCIe/USB3/SATA that goes with them, along with SATA RAID that’s not available to B360 buyers. Yet the H370M Pro4 costs less than the competing B360M Mortar.

So what did the H370’s extra chipset pathways get us? Two SATA ports and two I/O-panel USB 3.0 (aka USB 3.1 Gen1) ports, when compared to the B360 model from MSI. That doesn’t sound like much, but the B360M Mortar’s I/O panel lacked 5Gb/s ports completely. The two 10Gb/s ports are 5Gb/s compatible, but that’s still only two ports. The MSI model does upgrade the front-panel headers to include one 10Gb/s USB 3.1 Gen2, but that single port comes at the expense of two USB 3.0 ports, because it uses the same resources . If you’re stuck wonderign which is better, consider first the type of front-panel cables your case uses.

The competing B360M Mortar also includes an RGB controller and corresponding header for RGB cables, so it might be better for show-system builders or those who just like their PC's innards basked in a rainbow-like glow. But then again, the MSI board costs more and has fewer USB 3.x and SATA ports. Builders who value those ports more highly than RGB get a double shot of value in the H370M Pro4’s lower price.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

ASRock Fatal1ty B360 Gaming K4 ATX Motherboard Review: Stepping Down From H370

Thomas Soderstrom — Fri, 10 Aug 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Features & Layout

How far can you go when cutting costs, while still appealing to budget-conscious enthusiasts? Intel's B360 chipset, a couple steps down from the Z370 flagship, walks that line well in terms of features. It nixes overclocking and multi-card graphics support, but adds integrated USB 3.1 Gen2 abilities while--in theory at least--making for more-affordable motherboards.

The ASRock Fatal1ty B360 Gaming K4 we're looking at here, however, falls flat primarily because of pricing. For just $5 more, the ASRock Fatal1ty H370 Performance offers better connectivity and more PCIe bandwidth for graphics and speedy NVMe storage. And for this B360 board's $115 asking price, you can even find a few alternatives with the flagship Z370 chipset, giving you all the features that B360 takes away.

Specifications

Socket	LGA 1151
Chipset	Intel B360
Form Factor	ATX
Voltage Regulator	10 Phases
Video Ports	VGA, DisplayPort 1.2, HDMI 1.4
USB Ports	10Gbps: (1) Type-C, (1) Type A 5Gb/s: (2) Type A; (2) USB 2.0
Network Jacks	Gigabit Ethernet
Audio Jacks	(5) Analog, (1) Digital Out
Legacy Ports/Jacks	(1) PS/2
Other Ports/Jack	✗
PCIe x16	(2) v3.0 (x16/x4) (Shared with PCIe 5, 6)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	(4) v3.0 (Shares lanes with four-lane x16, M.2 Key-E)
CrossFire/SLI	2x / ✗
DIMM slots	(4) DDR4
M.2 slots	(2) PCIe 3.0 x4^ / SATA, (1) Key-E/CNVi (Consumes SATA ports 1, 2; ^SATA port 0)
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(6) 6Gb/s (Port 0-2 shared w/M.2)
USB Headers	(1) v3.0, (2) v2.0
Fan Headers	(5) 4-Pin
Legacy Interfaces	Serial COM Port
Other Interfaces	FP-Audio, TPM, (2) RGB LED, D-LED, TB-Header
Diagnostics Panel	✗
Internal Button/Switch	✗ / ✗
SATA Controllers	Integrated
Ethernet Controllers	WGI219V PHY
Wi-Fi / Bluetooth	✗ / ✗
USB Controllers	Integrated
HD Audio Codec	ALC1220
Warranty	✗

The B360 Gaming K4 uses the same circuit board as the company's H370 Performance motherboard. Shared features start with the I/O panel’s two USB 2.0 and single PS/2 ports, three graphics outputs (VGA, DisplayPort and HMDI) for the CPU’s integrated GPU, two USB 3.1 Gen1 (5Gb/s) ports, Type A and Type-C USB 3.1 Gen2 ports (10Gb/s), a network port wired to Intel’s i219 Gigabit Ethernet hardware, five analog audio jacks fed by Realtek’s ALC1220 codec and a digital optical audio output.

Panning out we see an M.2 storage slot behind the top PCIe x1 slot, an M.2 Key-E slot (typically used for Wi-Fi/Bluetooth) behind the second PCIe x1 slot, and another storage slot near the front edge of the board that points towards the bottom two PCIe x1 slots. Sharing starts here, as the second PCIe x1 slot steals a lane from the Key-E slot, which disables its PCIe mode without impacting CNVi availability. The bottom two x1 slots steal lanes from the four-pathway slot above them, kicking it down to x2 mode. The lower M.2 storage slot has only two lanes to start, and steals one of its HSIO (Intel’s flexible High-Speed I/O) pathways from a SATA port, disabling that port while leaving the other five enabled.

The shared circuit board answers any HSIO resource exclusions not fully addressed in our H370 Performance review, since the only things we see missing from the B360 Gaming K4 are two of the second M.2 slot’s PCIe pathways and the second USB 3.0 front-panel header. Missing features that we can’t see so easily are attributed to the change in chipset, as the B360 loses RAID mode, and the second M.2 slot isn't addressed by Intel RST.

Starting from the top and center of the picture above and going counterclockwise, there's a 5-pin header for addressing a four-lane Thunderbolt add-in card (not included), one of the four PCIe x1 slots, which is open-ended to receive longer (x4, etc) cards, the front-panel HD-Audio cable header, a TPM header, a legacy Serial Communications port, a 4-pin fan header, Addressable and standard RGB light strip headers, two dual-port USB 2.0 headers, two more 4-pin fan headers, a PC (Beep Code) speaker and 3-pin Power-LED header, a standard Intel power/reset/activity LED header.

Moving up the front edge are the second M.2 storage connector, six SATA ports, and the corner of the board’s dual-port SATA 3.0 header. Four of the motherboard’s five fan headers are switchable between pulse width modulation and voltage-based RPM control, and the same four feature 2.0 amp capacity (boosted from 1A on the PWM-only CPU fan header).

The B360 Gaming K4 has only two SATA ports, which makes sense in the era of M.2 SSDs, but might not work for some builders who are attempting to transfer multiple drives from an older system. An I/O shield, driver disc and printed documentation make up the board's modest in-box accessories.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

The B360 Gaming K4 is ASRock’s first Fatal1ty-series motherboard not to include its F-Stream software, which is the Fatal1ty-branded version of ASRock's overclocking-focused A-Tuning software. An F-Stream icon is in the root folder of the driver disc, but the software itself is missing from both the disc and the motherboard’s download web page. This makes sense though, given that overclocking isn't an option with this board.

In addition to driver and firmware updates, ASRock Live Update includes downloads for some junkware, as well as the XFast LAN custom-interfaced version of cFOS network optimization, ASRock’s Key Master and Fatalt1ty Mouse Port applications. The latter apps add macros, automatic repeat (for rapid firing), mouse poling rate control and a game designed to hone your keyboard/mouse gaming speed and accuracy.

ASRock has constantly trailed its rivals in RGB program complexity, but the Polychrome program included with this board works flawlessly. The B360 Gaming K4 has separate zones for its I/O and audio codec covers, PCH heatsink, both RGB outputs and its Addressable LED header. Several memory companies also claim ASRock Polychrome compatibility for their RGB DIMMs.

Firmware

The B360 Gaming K4's firmware opens to ASRock’s EZ Mode interface, which is good enough for most users since the chipset blocks most overclocking options. Boot priority and fan control modes can be set here, and there are shortcuts for Instant Flash firmware updating, Internet Flash firmware downloading and FAN-Tastic Tuning fan-map creating utilities. Striking the keyboard’s F6 key brings users to its Advanced Mode GUI.

ASRock’s OC Tweaker menu looks functional, but the submenus it links to don’t support CPU overclocking due to chipset limitations.

XMP memory mode (Intel's RAM overclocking preset tech) doesn't work on B360, though DRAM frequency adjustments are available within the chipset-imposed DDR4-2666 limit. The limitations are not within the chipset, but imposed upon other components by the chipset.

Memory frequencies limited to DDR4-2666 won’t prevent serious memory tweakers from chasing optimized timings to reduce latency. The B360 Gaming K4 enables this and even has a menu to display the memory’s programming.

The B360 Gaming K4 supports over-voltage configurations, which isn’t helpful with most non-overclocked hardware, but it also supports voltage reduction, which could be useful for builders chasing the highest possible efficiency.

Users can also choose their default firmware GUI from Advanced mode, under its Advanced menu.

The Tools menu includes an email-sending utility for support messages, a firmware update utility, a firmware download utility, and a configuration menu to enable the function of the firmware download utility on advanced networks.

The Hardware Monitor menu leads to CPU fan control, where four of the five fan headers can be switched from PWM to voltage-based RPM control, and all five can be assigned custom profiles. ASRock also includes its fan-tuning algorithm, which determines minimum operational fan RPM and adjusts automatic fan maps accordingly.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

As for memory, we decided to stick with RAM we had on-hand. G.Skill’s Ripjaws V 3200 barely carries any price premium over budget sticks, and it could allow overclocking if anyone were to unlock the platform. Our CPU supports DDR4-2400 at both 9x 133MHz and 12x 100MHz settings, and if anyone ever figures out how to fool the board into using the higher 12x multiplier with the higher 133MHz base clock, the resulting 1600MHz frequency would get us to DDR4-3200.

The Core i3-8350k doesn't include a cooler, so we used a Noctua NH-U12 because it was handily close to our test bench.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Comparison Products

ASRock Fatal1ty B360 Gaming K4

Gigabyte H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi

ASRock Fatal1ty H370 Performance

The closest competitor to ASRock's Fatal1ty B360 Gaming K4 is its own Fatal1ty H370 Performance. Gigabyte's higher-model H370 Aorus Gaming 3 brings some brand variety into the mix, and MSI's B360M Mortar presents the B360 chipset at a far lower price.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613 Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0 Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21 CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write 128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMO OpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8 Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3 Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9 Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68a BMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02 THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command-line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64 PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit) PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of the Singularity	Version 1.31.21360 High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAA Crazy Preset - 1920x1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, Rain Medium Preset, No AF Ultra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64 High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AF Very High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252 Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AF Ultra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

Synthetic benchmarks are a great way to look for configuration problems. We shouldn’t need to watch out for secretive overclocks on this non-overclockable platform.

Synthetic Benchmarks

A perfect set of synthetic benchmarks would show all boards purely equal, and we’re very close to that in our B360 and H370 sample set. Manufacturers can still mess around with advanced memory timings to get a slight advantage without overclocking, but we don’t see the impact on these motherboard models.

3D Games

The B360 Gaming K4 has a slight bump in our highest-quality Talos test, but it’s small enough to be coincidental. Other gaming tests show even less variation.

Timed Applications

Timed applications again show no appreciable performance advantages for any specific motherboard model, which means we get to rate boards based solely on efficiency and features-per-dollar.

Power, Heat & Efficiency

The B360 Gaming K4 draws slightly more power than average at full load, placing it behind the scale in our efficiency chart. Fortunately, that lower efficiency was not reflected in higher temperatures. Our percent-based charts are based on our entire H370/B360 review series, including a product that wasn’t quite up to speed, making the average for today’s group around half a percent better-performing than our average for the series.

Final Analysis

Performance per dollar makes the most sense when comparing boards with identical features, and the competing H370 boards offer that chipset’s integrated advantages for a few dollars more. The H370 Performance uses the same PCB design to host the same slots and controllers as the B360 Gaming K4, but for $5 more includes the H370’s extra PCIe/HSIO pathways and Intel RST with RAID. Since two of the H370’s extra lanes are fed to the second M.2 slot, people who want to mount a pair of fast NVMe drives should take note of that difference regardless of whether RAID is a factor in their buying decision.

ASRock’s implementation of the same supporting hardware for both its H370 and B360 motherboards leaves little question about the minuscule price difference between these models. On the other hand, if we look a little farther afield, we find MSI's same-chipset B360M Mortar for $20 less than ASRock's offering. The Mortar has a cheaper audio codec, and while MSI figured out a way to make its second M.2 slot PCIe x4-capable, it did so by making its use an either/or choice against the board’s second x16-length slot. Whether the competing board is a better bargain depends on whether you need two M.2 storage slots and an x16/x4 PCIe slot configuration active simultaneously. Those are the kinds of questions that, well, shouldn’t keep us up at night given the small difference in price. If you need a feature, there's no reason not to throw a few dollars at it.

The next step up in the price, the H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi, is fully decked out with Intel’s 1.73Gb/s Wi-Fi controller, a front-panel USB 3.1 Gen2 connector, less resource sharing, and Gigabyte's board even has RGB DIMM slots. It costs $20 more than the B360 Gaming K4, and it just might be worth that to non-overclocking, non-SLI-building PC enthusiasts.

The Fatal1ty B360 Gaming K4 is in an odd position where builders need to determine if its missing features, compared to ASRock’s own H370 model, are worth saving just $5. The H370 model's feature-to-price ratio wasn't all that appealing. Given this model cuts a bit more while only knocking $5 off the price makes it tough to recommend.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Gigabyte H370N WiFi Review: Fast WiFi, Slow USB

Thomas Soderstrom — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 12:59:00 +0000

Features & Layout

The value message of Intel's H370 chipset (as opposed to the flagship Z370) continues with Gigabyte's H370N WiFi motherboard. It offers mid-market features like dual Gigabit Ethernet ports for at least $20 less than similarly-equipped Z370 boards that preceded it. Yet Intel's value message gets a little less clear in Gigabyte's implementation.

Intel's integration of USB 3.1 Gen2 within its recently-launched Q370, H370 & B36 Series should give these boards an extra $10-$20 pricing advantage over the Z370 options, for which board makers have to buy add-in controllers for that feature. Gigabyte's decision not to implement this integrated feature leaves us to consider the board's other hardware, as we also contemplate how well the chipset’s limited resources are being deployed on a board that, at $125-$130, is still priced a bit higher than similar competition.

The short list of uncommon features Gigabyte adds to this board includes a DisplayPort-to-HDMI 2.0 adapter for one of the three display outputs, a pair of Intel Gigabit Ethernet ports, and Intel’s latest CNVi-based 1.73Gb/s Wi-Fi module. Gigabyte also adds a second NVMe-compatible M.2 storage slot, the omission of which we decried on the competing ASRock H370M-ITX/ac. Note, though, that the ASRock board sells for $15-$20 less than the Gigabyte board we're looking at here.

Specifications

Socket	LGA 1151
Chipset	Intel H370
Form Factor	Mini-ITX
Voltage Regulator	6 Phases
Video Ports	(1) HDMI 2.0, (1) DisplayPort 1.2, (1) HDMI 1.4
USB Ports	5Gb/s: (1) Type-C, (4) Type A
Network Jacks	(2) Gigabit Ethernet, (2) Wi-Fi Antenna
Audio Jacks	(3) Analog
Legacy Ports/Jacks	✗
Other Ports/Jacks	✗
PCIe x16	(1) v3.0 (full bandwidth)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	✗
CrossFire/SLI	✗ / ✗
DIMM Slots	(2) DDR4
M.2 Slots	(1) PCIe 3.0 x4, (1) PCIe 3.0 x4 / SATA
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(4) 6Gb/s
USB Headers	(1) v3.0, (1) v2.0
Fan Headers	(3) 4-Pin
Legacy Interfaces	PC (beep code) speaker
Other Interfaces	FP-Audio, SPDIF-Out, D-LED, RGBW-LED, Chassis Intrusion, TPM
Diagnostics Panel	✗
Internal Button/Switch	✗
SATA/RAID Controllers	Integrated (0/1/5/10)
Ethernet Controllers	WGI211AT PCIe, WGI219V PHY
Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Controllers	Intel 9560 802.11ac 2x2 (1.73Gb/s) / BT 5 Combo
USB Controllers	Integrated
HD Audio Codec	ALC1220
DDL/DTS Connect	✗
Warranty	3 Years

To be clear, the Gigabyte H370N's WiFi I/O panel does have a USB Type-C connector, but it’s only connected to a 5Gb/s interface (USB 3.1 Gen1). All of the Type A connectors are also of the USB 3.1 Gen1 standard and, when added to the PCIe-interfaced second Ethernet controller, they consume a total of six of the chipset’s 30 HSIO (Intel’s flexible PCIe/USB/SATA interface) lanes. The other Ethernet port uses a physical layer IC (PHY) to access the chipset-integrated feature, as does the Wi-Fi interface.

Zooming out, we see the metal-reinforced PCIe slot, which gets all sixteen of its lanes directly from the CPU. There’s also an M.2 interface above that slot (between the PCH sink and DIMM slots), four SATA ports, and a USB 3.0 front-panel header (next to the SATA ports). These all consume a total of ten additional HSIO resources.

The back of the H370N WiFi has an additional M.2 connector that consumes four more HSIO lanes, along with the Gigabit Ethernet PHY. Unlike the M.2 slot on the top of the board, the underside slot doesn’t include support for SATA drives. So far, we’ve only counted 24 HSIO pathways, but can add one more to the total, since the topside M.2 slot’s PCIe and SATA resources are hard-wired.

Since we can't account for the chipset’s full lot of 30 HSIO resources, we're left baffled as to why Gigabyte didn’t include a front-panel USB 3.1 Gen2 header and/or give the back I/O-panel Type-C port twice its current bandwidth. Perhaps the board designers ran out of space? Regardless of the reason, it's a handy, future-looking feature that many competing boards have, yet this Gigabyte model lacks.

Three fan headers along the H370N WiFi’s top edge are adequate for our preferred configuration (front fan, rear fan, CPU fan). But our concern for builders is that the USB 2.0 header (lower front edge) and Intel-style button/LED header (center front edge) are both given the same color treatment. This can lead to confusion in the build process.

The four SATA ports are bundled near the center of the front edge, to avoid any conflict with oversized CPU coolers. The CPU interface is moved a little further away from the PCIe slot (3.7” center-to-center) to reduce the likelihood of the CPU cooler interfering with graphics card installation, and there’s just enough between the socket and DIMMs to fit our Noctua NH-U12S CPU cooler (with its fan on front) behind our memory.

Famed for pushing the envelope on RGB lighting, Gigabyte decided here to go in a more understated direction. There are nolighted DIMM or graphics slots on the H370N WiFi. A short row of under-board RGB LEDs highlight solely an accent stripe around the front-panel audio connector. That said, for those who do want to add a rainbow or three to their build, the board still includes a RGBW and an addressable LED headers (one of each) for case lighting strips.

In the box, the H370N WiFi includes two SATA cables, a Wi-Fi antenna, an I/O shield, a driver and application disc, and documentation. In other words, the basics are covered, but nothing more.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

Gigabyte’s APP Center remains launch point for its applications and shortcuts/applets, with the H370N WiFi differing from its “Aorus”-branded siblings in application color scheme. The H370N WiFi’s suite loses Gigabyte’s BIOS Tuner, Color Temperature, and DAC Up software compared to its previously detailed Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 suite. The later program is missing because this board doesn’t support fine tuning of USB voltage.

Gigabyte EasyTune doesn’t provide much room to manipulate CPU parameters when paired with the H370 PCH, but users can still underclock for increased efficiency at far lower voltage levels if they wish.

The RGB Fusion lighting control is limited to the board’s short strip of LEDs that follow its front-panel audio connector, plus the two RGB headers (RGBW and addressable LED).

Firmware

Gigabyte’s M.I.T. firmware menu is copied from its Z-series boards, but many of the individual settings are either removed or extremely limited due to H370 restrictions. Host Clock (CPU Base Clock) for example is grayed out, and our unlocked CPU can’t be set any higher than its default 40x multiplier.

DRAM data rates are limited to DDR4-2666 by the chipset, and capped even lower to DDR4-2400 by our chosen CPU. Performance seekers are still welcome to tighten timings for quicker response, and the board even offers users the ability to group channel timings (manual timing mode) or address each channel individually (advanced manual mode).

Power settings such as CPU Loadline Calibration, which attempt to normalize internal voltage as loads are increased, are designed for overclocking methods that the board's chipset blocks. Gigabyte includes those anyway, in addition to extended CPU, PCH, and DRAM voltage adjustments that reflect the overclocking capabilities of other Gigabyte boards.

Gigabyte breaks its system monitor and fan controls into two menus, the later allowing manual five-point curves to be set in addition to automatic fan profiles. All three fan headers can be switched between PWM and voltage-based RPM control.

A simplified version of RGB Fusion is found within the firmware GUI’s “Peripherals” menu, enabling lighting adjustments without reliance on the Windows application.

Our first firmware image showed menus that pop in from the bottom and left edges when the mouse is pointed there. One of the bottom-edge options lets you switch to Easy Mode GUI. Fewer settings are available here, but at least it looks nice. Since Easy Mode isn’t actually easier to use, we applaud Gigabyte for defaulting to its Classic Mode interface.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

We also chose the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti for its performance-to-price ratio. The two-fan cooler of MSI’s Gaming X version gives us reduced noise while still fitting within two slots.

As for memory, we decided to stick with RAM we had on-hand. G.Skill’s Ripjaws V 3200 barely carries any price premium over budget sticks, and it could allow overclocking if anyone were to unlock the platform. Our CPU supports DDR4-2400 at both 9x 133MHz and 12x 100MHz settings, and if anyone ever figures out how to fool the boardinto using the higher 12x multiplier with the higher 133MHz base clock, the resulting 1600MHz frequency would get us to DDR4-3200.

The Core i3-8350k doesn't include a cooler, and we understand that most buyers will be looking for one priced between $20 and $40. While it may be possible to find a $40 cooler that performs as well as our Noctua NH-U12S, we used that cooler because, again, it was handily close to our test bench. As with any build, reusing old components where possible is the best way to save money.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Comparison Products

Gigabyte H370N WiFi

ASRock H370M-ITX/ac

MSI B360M Mortar

ASRock's H370M-ITX/ac is the closest competitor to Gigabyte's H370N WiFi, but ASRock's firmware was still pretty early when we tested it, which could affect some benchmarks. We've added a couple non-ITX boards to expand our performance data set.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613 Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0 Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21 CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write 128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMO OpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8 Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3 Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9 Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68a BMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02 THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command-line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64 PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit) PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of the Singularity	Version 1.31.21360 High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAA Crazy Preset - 1920x1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, Rain Medium Preset, No AF Ultra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64 High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AF Very High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252 Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AF Ultra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

Synthetic Benchmarks

The Gigabyte H370N WiFi’s 3DMark score starts off a little high at the benchmark's lowest settings, but becomes rather ordinary at higher settings. Moreover, there’s nothing amiss with its CPU scores in Sandra, nor its graphics scores in Compubench, that would indicate cheating. But that's to be expected, because cheating by juicing voltage, etc. is nearly impossible on the locked-down H370 chipset.

3D Games

There’s nothing particularly interesting in our real-world game tests either, with the Gigabyte H370N WiFi competing within normal margins against both the H370 Performance and B360M Mortar. Likely because of its early beta firmware, the H370M-ITX/ac fell slightly behind.

Timed Applications

Shorter times are better in our applications performance tests, and the H370N WiFi hits high scores in a few tests here, while taking lows in others. Its performance is just below average for the field, with several small losses in Adobe Creative Cloud dragging it down.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

The H370N WiFi’s low full-load power gives it a slight advantage over other boards, with an average of 54.5W that rounds up to the 55W of the H370M-ITX/ac. We don’t set our automatic calculations to round however, and that half-watt savings will count in our efficiency calculations.

Heat isn’t a problem for the H370N WiFi, as it produced the lowest thermal reading of our H370 samples.

Saved by half a watt, the H370N WiFi appears to be 1% more efficient than the second-place H370M-ITX/ac.

Final Thoughts

Priced at around $130, the H370N WiFi only appears to have a value problem if you don't care much about its 1.73Gb/s Wi-Fi controller. The $110 H370M-ITX/ac costs less, but sports a slower adapter. And while both boards also have the same Ethernet controllers, the Gigabyte sample includes Realtek’s higher-model ALC1220 audio codec. These are notable distinctions, but not ones that get reflected in a price-to-performance chart.

If we canceled out the Gigabyte board's $20 price premium for its combination of better audio and faster Wi-Fi interface, the H370N WiFi’s HDMI 2.0 port could still put it over the top in terms of value. That feature integrates a high-end adapter to tap into a second DisplayPort output of the CPU’s onboard graphics controller. But we’re still confused about the complete lack of USB 3.1 Gen2 ports, as this feature is common elsewhere yet absent here. And that's strange, as this ability is integrated into the H370 chipset.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

ASRock Fatal1ty H370 Performance ATX Motherboard Review: Affordable, but No WiFi

Thomas Soderstrom — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Features & Layout

Intel has never forgotten that its LGA 1151 platform targets mainstream buyers, even as its 2017 Coffee Lake series CPU launch included only a high-end Z-series chipset. Normally reserved for overclocking enthusiasts, those Z370 boards hardly seemed to be the most value-oriented solution for the clock-locked CPUs that followed the initial K-series chips. April’s H370 and B360 launch finally brought us a full spectrum of sub-$140 boards, including a feature-packed ATX, budget Micro-ATX, and more middling Mini ITX model. With those baselines set, the real competition for value supremacy begins with the Fatal1ty H370 Performance from ASRock.

The $125 Fatal1ty H370's Performance undercuts its chief rival, the H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi, by around $15. Both boards feature a single PCIe x16 slot, an x16-length slot that runs at x4 speeds, two M.2 storage slots, a single short M.2 Key-E slot for Wi-Fi adapters, USB Type A and Type-C 10Gb/s ports on the I/O panel, Intel’s i219V networking hardware, and Realtek’s ALC1220 audio codec. But as comprehensive as those similarities appear, there are a few smaller details the could separate the two boards in larger ways.

ASRock solves one of the major deficiencies we found in its competitor’s review by adding an antenna bracket to its I/O shield, rather than relying on a slot adapter plate. ASRock also uses a DisplayPort graphics option to replace its competitors DVI connector, and even appeals to those using old equipment by also adding a VGA port.

The picture changes a bit as we zoom out though, because the Fatal1ty H370 Performance lacks the Intel 1.73Gb/s Wi-Fi controller of its Gigabyte rival. Instead, we see an empty Key-E/CNVi combination slot. CNVi is a new codec-card interface developed by Intel to host its faster Wi-Fi controller. The empty Key-E/CNVi slot rests between the metal-reinforced x16 slot and its four-pathway fraternal twin. The absence of Wi-Fi hardware on this ASRock board is enough by itself to offset the price difference between it and its Gigabyte rival. Though some buyers don’t care about Wi-Fi, those who think they might add a module later should note that the ASRock board does not include the extra-long antenna wires that would be required to snake around the PCIe x16 slot. The lack of antenna wires makes the smartly-placed Wi-Fi antenna bracket less useful.

You may have noticed in the above photo that the forward edges of the PCIe x1 slots aren’t capped. Open-ended PCIe slots allow longer cards to be fitted, as long as enough power is available via the shorter slot and/or a supplemental power cable, and ASRock was even careful enough to maintain clearance for cards up to x16-length on three of those slots. Unfortunately, the middle x1 slot shares its PCIe pathway with the M.2 Key-E slot, and the lower two x1 slots share pathways with the four-lane slot above them, forcing the latter down to x2-modewhen either of those slots are filled. Only the uppermost x1 slot gets its own PCIe pathway, and its ability to support longer cards is compromised by the placement of the top M.2 storage slot.

The Fatal1ty H370 Performance's ten-phase voltage regulator competes on spec with its Gigabyte rival, and we even find the same number of four-pin fan headers--three on the bottom edge, one above and one below the CPU socket. But while the Gigabyte board offered a 10Gb/s front-panel header in addition to USB 3.0, ASRock chose instead to feature two USB 3.0 headers for the front panel.

As with its competitor, the Fatal1ty H370 Performance’s two M.2 storage slots also share resources with SATA. In this case, placing a SATA M.2 card in the top slot disables the SATA port 2, and placing a SATA M.2 drive in the second storage slot disables SATA port 1. Oddly, placing an NVMe drive in the second M.2 storage slot disables SATA port 0. That type of resource switching certainly is frustrating, but common, and can only be attributed to Intel’s flexible-pathway (HSIO) design.

While one RGB connector is placed at the Fatal1ty H370 Performance's top edge, the bottom edge is packed with front-panel audio, chassis intrusion, trusted platform module, serial port, three fan, addressable LED, a second RGB LED, two USB 2.0, PC (beep code) speaker, 3-pin power LED, and standard front panel LED/switch headers. A Thunderbolt add-in card header sits just below the second long PCIe slot, but getting the required four pathways to that slot requires builders to leave both x1 slots below empty.

Packed with documentation in print and on CD, the Fatal1ty H370 Performance's box also includes just two SATA cables, an I/O shield, and some easy-to-loose M.2 screws to aid installation. One of the SATA cables has a right-angle end, the other is straight on both ends.

Specifications

Socket	LGA 1151
Chipset	Intel Z370
Form Factor	ATX
Voltage Regulator	10 Phases
Video Ports	VGA, DisplayPort 1.2, HDMI 1.4
USB Ports	10Gbps: (1) Type-C, (1), Type A 5Gb/s: (2) Type A; (2) USB 2.0
Network Jacks	(1) Gigabit Ethernet
Audio Jacks	(5) Analog, (1) Digital
Legacy Ports/Jacks	(1) PS/2
Other Ports/Jacks	✗
PCIe x16	(2) v3.0 (x16/x4)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	(4) v3.0 (Shares lanes with four-lane x16, M.2 Key-E)
CrossFire/SLI	2x / ✗
DIMM Slots	(4) DDR4
M.2 Slots	(2) PCIe 3.0 x4^ / SATA, (1) Key-E/CNVi (Consumes SATA ports 1, 2; ^SATA port 0)
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(6) 6Gb/s (Port 0-2 shared w/M.2)
USB Headers	(2) v3.0, (2) v2.0
Fan Headers	(5) 4-Pin
Legacy Interfaces	Serial COM Port
Other Interfaces	FP-Audio, TPM, (2) RGB LED, D-LED, TB-Header
Diagnostics Panel	✗
Internal Button/Switch	✗ / ✗
SATA/RAID Controllers	Integrated (0/1/5/10)
Ethernet Controllers	WGI219V PHY
Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Controllers	✗ / ✗
USB Controllers	Integrated
HD Audio Codec	ALC1220
DDL/DTS Connect	✗ / ✗
Warranty	Three years

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

ASRock's package designers appear obligated to included F-Stream software with its entire Faltal1ty motherboard series, even though that software is nearly useless when running on a board with the H370 chipset. DRAM and CPU voltage settings are available, but increasing those doesn’t exactly make sense on a board that has no ability to overclock and a maximum RAM speed of DDR4-2666.

Another of ASRock’s Fatal1ty features, Sound Blaster Cinema 3 audio control software, can synthesize 3D on stereo speakers or headphones, increase music fidelity, reduce volume level swings like those that are often added for emphasis in moves, increase dialog volume above background noise/music, and increase bass level.

ASRock Polychrome RGB addresses the I/O cover, PCH sink, and audio codec cover motherboard LEDs, plus two RGB and one addressable LED header. The controls are very basic, with not so much as a chase sequence available. You’ll also notice that the three on-board zones affect three corners of the board: The DIMM area is a lighting dead zone once a graphics card is installed, though adding some RGB memory modules could bring aesthetic balance on the LED front.

Firmware

The Fatal1ty H370's Performance's firmware opens to an “Easy Mode” interface, which isn’t necessarily easier to use, but instead makes it harder to screw up settings compared to Advanced Mode. Only basic settings such as boot drive order and fan speed can be set here, though an integrated “Tools” menu also allows users to update firmware from a USB flash drive, download new firmware to a USB flash drive, and/or run a fan tuning algorithm that alters the default speed-to-temperature profile to match the minimum speed at which the fans will spin up.

Advanced Mode includes an OC Tweaker menu despite the chipset’s lock on overclocking. With no overclocking ability, the CPU Configuration menu has no multiplier or base clock frequency controls. We’d have liked to at least have underclock capability for efficiency experiments, but that’s not possible here either.

Our test CPU is theoretically limited to DDR4-2400, and the H370 chipset is firmly limited to DDR4-2666, so DRAM performance changes can only be done via latency tuning to make it more responsive (quicker). The Fatal1ty H370 Performance still has ASRock’s full DRAM Configuration menu though, including its DRAM Tweaker SPD/XMP configuration report.

The Fatal1ty voltage menu is also retained from overclockable motherboards such as the Z370, compete with its wide range of values. But without overclocking, the best use for the core voltage setting might be for power reduction experimentation. For memory tweakers, increased DRAM voltage could add stability to allow additional reductions in latency settings.

The entry GUI for UEFI can be changed from Easy to Advanced mode by picking Advance from the UEFI Setup Style options of the Advanced menu. The below photo simplifies this discussion.

Though the CPU fan header supports only PWM control, the other four headers (Including CPU Fan2) support both PWM and voltage control modes. The Fan Tuning menu starts an adjustment algorithm to determine slope based on the fans minimum operational speed, and the Fan-Tastic Tuning menu allows users to pick a programed curve or set their own based on five points of adjustment.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

We picked our primary components (the CPU, graphics, and DRAM) based primarily upon a balance of performance and price. Intel’s Core i3-8350K offers four cores at 4GHz. The fact that our chip is unlocked hasn’t escaped us: Though it’s unlikely anyone will crack one of these locked platforms, but stranger things have happened.

We also chose the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti for its performance-to-price ratio. The two-fan cooler of MSI’s Gaming X version gives us reduced noise while still fitting within two slots.

As for memory, we decided to stick with RAM that we have on-hand. G.Skill’s Ripjaws V 3200 barely carries any pricing premium over budget sticks, could allow overclocking if anyone were to unlock this platform, and it kept us within budget. Our CPU supports DDR4-2400 at both 9x 133MHz and 12x 100MHz settings, and if anyone ever figures out how to fool a system into using the higher 12x multiplier with the higher 133MHz base clock, the resulting 1600MHz frequency would get us to DDR4-3200.

The Core i3-8350k doesn't include a cooler, and we understand that most buyers will be looking for one priced between $20 and $40. While it’s possible to find a $40 cooler that performs as well as our old Noctua NH-U12S, the reason we retained it is that it was already in-hand. As with any build, reusing old components where possible is the best way to save money!

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Comparison Products

ASRock Fatal1ty H370 Performance

ASRock H370M-ITX/ac

Gigabyte H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi

We’re comparing the Fatal1ty H370 Performance to the models from our original H370/B360 lineup, with additional consideration given to the ATX motherboard of that crowd, the H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi.

Benchmark Settings
Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613 Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0 Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21 CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write 128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMO OpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8 Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3 Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9 Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68a BMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02 THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command-line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64 PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit) PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of the Singularity	Version 1.31.21360 High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAA Crazy Preset - 1920x1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, Rain Medium Preset, No AF Ultra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64 High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AF Very High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252 Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AF Ultra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

From our prior reviews, the closest competitor to ASRock’s Fatal1ty H370 Performance is Gigabyte's H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi. Besides having the same form factor and being marketed to similar customers, the two are a dead match through our entire benchmark suite.

Synthetic Benchmarks

Even in Sandra Memory Bandwidth, the two ATX boards produce performance that’s close enough to squash any noticeable difference in the second-most-impacted synthetic, Sandra Cryptography.

3D Games

The lack of noticeable memory performance difference leaves the Fatal1ty H370 Performance and H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi tied across our entire gaming suite. Even the fractional BCLK manipulations often found at the 100MHz setting of most Z370 boards have been stomped out when pairing Coffee Lake with the H370 chipset.

Timed Applications

The close performance between the Fatal1ty H370 Performance and H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi continues through timed tests, with differences between the two products approximate to variations between consecutive benchmark runs.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

The Fatal1ty H370 Performance's power levels idle slightly higher than H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi, but ASRock's board also draws slightly less power under full CPU load.

The Fatal1ty H370 Performance also runs a little warmer than the H370 Aorus Gaming 3. While the Mini ITX sample was even hotter, we can attribute at least part of that higher temperature to its smaller voltage regulator heat sink. As shown by the B360M Mortar, Micro ATX doesn’t have Mini ITX's problems.

A scant 0.3% performance difference separates the Fatal1ty H370 Performance from the H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi, and that’s too small to offset even its tiny difference in power consumption. The ASRock board loses this efficiency battle.

Final Analysis

Priced $15 lower than the H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi, the ASRock Fatal1ty H370 Performance comes up short by about $20 in features, maybe a little less based on bulk discounts of the competitor’s WiFi controller, or maybe a little more given the competitor’s additional RGB lighting at the DIMM slots and front edge. Sure, some people don’t care about lighting, but those who do will certainly find the Fatal1ty H370 Performance DIMM area…dim, unless they splurge on lighted memory modules.

The one thing that held the H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi back from an award was that we thought the $140 product should have been priced at around $130. At $125, the Fatal1ty H370 Performance loses enough features to make its prime competitor look like an even better value than we first assessed.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Cheap Coffee Lake: Three Intel H370 and B360 Motherboards, Tested

Thomas Soderstrom — Tue, 03 Apr 2018 07:01:01 +0000

Fresh Coffee: The New H370 and B360 Motherboard Chipsets

Today's official rollout of the Intel H370 and B360 chipsets is the starting gun for the debut of a horde of new, more affordable motherboards for 8th Generation Intel® Core™ processors. That's a desktop-hardware development long awaited by PC builders and upgraders, who have been bound, until now, to Z370-chipset-based motherboards and waiting for budget-minded boards for the "Coffee Lake" family of desktop chips. (See our coverage by Paul Alcorn of the new chipsets' launch.)

With these new-for-2018 chipsets decloaking, we got our mitts on three new enthusiast-targeted boards based on these "mainstream"-grade chipsets. Our test boards are from ASRock, MSI, and Gigabyte/Aorus, and each is a different form factor. But properly defining what makes for a “mainstream” motherboard in this new chipset reality gets a little complicated--so buckle in and let us explain.

The New "Coffee Lake" Mainstream

Let's recap where things are today. We know that CPUs based on the LGA 1151 socket continue to define Intel’s mainstream platform (as opposed to the higher-end LGA 2066 processors under the Core X-Series banner), and that chipsets beginning with "Z" are traditionally sold to performance enthusiasts as the overclockable, multi-GPU compatible version of its mainstream platform. The Z-series motherboards lead, and lower-model chipsets are later introduced with the same CPU compatibility but fewer features. For today's launch, the H370, B360, and H310 offer lower-cost compatibility for the 8th Generation Intel Core processors which had, until today, required a somewhat-expensive Z370 motherboard.

Yes, the nuances are a tangle, and we invite anyone who doesn’t care about the details to jump to Page 2 of this roundup for the start of the blow-by-blow on each board we have in hand. For the rest of us, though, the conversation starts three years ago, with Intel's premium Z170 chipset, which was rumored to have four HSIO resources that would have been available for PCIe--but were held in reserve. PC enthusiasts and other keen observers of the market guessed that those pathways might have been reserved for Thunderbolt controller integration. But when the Thunderbolt-equipped boards came out, they didn’t use those pathways.

The follow-on Z270 chipset launched with four additional pathways. So, those of us who remembered the Z170’s reserved pathways questioned whether the Z270 was new silicon, or just a new name for the old silicon. And when Z370 came out, it appeared to be little more than a name used to differentiate "Skylake" and "Kaby Lake" motherboards (that is, those supporting 6th- and 7th-generation Core processors) from Coffee Lake (8th-generation Core) ones. Regardless of whether the Z170 had persisted in its original form under new names, or had some kind of minor bugs patched along the way, that’s a lot of years to get out of a design.

What we've seen in our pre-launch analysis, though, is that the new mainstream chipsets on display here today appear to be far closer to a complete revision than to reheated designs.

Integrating USB 3.1 Gen2

The biggest advancement with these new chipsets for value-seeking desktop users is that Intel now integrates USB 3.1 Gen2, which (confusingly enough) is the original 10Gb/s generation of USB 3.1. Those familiar with recent USB gyrations may recall that "USB 3.1 Gen1" is just a rename of USB 3.0, which is meant to assure users of compatibility with Gen2 devices, but at USB 3.0's lower 5Gb/s speed. Regardless of the naming games that marketers have played, the takeaway here is that users now get their 10Gb/s USB ports without paying, roughly, an extra $10 for each two-port add-in controller.

Gigabit Wi-Fi: The New AMR?

A bit of motherboard history here: Some of us remember the concept of the Audio/Modem Riser (AMR) from the days when people didn’t want to pay for motherboards loaded with low-quality audio and networking codecs. Frustrated buyers of mainstream motherboards were offered codec-free boards that had a worthless riser slot where a PCI slot should have gone. Fortunately, Intel’s latest riser interface makes dual use of a hybrid M.2 Key-E slot, so that users can choose whether to install an industry-standard PCIe-based module, or Intel’s proprietary CNVi module, in the same space.

By integrating several of the main components within the chipset, Intel has produced a 1.73Gb/s Wi-Fi module that costs about as much as its previous 867Mb/s PCIe-based module. Attaining the new speed requires an access point with a 160MHz channel, which comes with its own set of pluses and minuses that you’re probably searching the internet for right now. But this is a neat little addition to keep an eye on in these new chipsets. Some boards will support CNVi; others not.

The New Chipsets: Core Details

Tradition holds that new mainstream Intel chipsets are based on the most recent Z-series chipset, with a few features disabled. That’s not the situation this time, as Intel wasn’t ready with a new Z-series chipset when it decided to break off the Coffee Lake processor series from prior platforms. Overclockers are instead left waiting for the next Z-series to launch while the mainstream H370 and B360 are based on the Q370. Here is a breakout of the current 300-series chipset lineup, with the new ones added...

Intel 300 Series Chipset Features Table (April 2018 Updates)
	Z370	Q370	H370	B360	H310
DDR4 Overclocking	Yes	No	No	No	No
On-CPU PCI Express*3.0 Configuration(s)	1x16 or 2x8or1x8+2x4	1x16 or 2x8or1x8+2x4	1x16	1x16	1x16
Independent DisplayPorts / Pipes Support	3/3	3/3	3/3	3/3	3/2
Memory Channels / DIMMs per Channel	2/2	2/2	2/2	2/2	2/1
Processor Overclocking	Yes	No	No	No	No
Integrated Intel Wireless-ACSupport (CNVi)	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Intel Optane Memory Support	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Maximum High Speed I/O Lanes	30	30	30	24	14
Maximum USB 3.1 Ports: Gen 2 / Gen 1	0/10	6/10	4/8	4/6	0/4
Maximum SATA 6Gb/s Ports	6	6	6	6	4
Maximum PCI Express* 3.0 lanes	24 (v3.0)	24 (v3.0)	20 (v3.0)	12 (v3.0)	6 (v2.0)
Intel Rapid Storage Technology	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Maximum Intel RST for PCIe Storage Ports (x2 M.2 or x4 M.2)	3	3	2	1	0
Intel RST PCIe RAID 0, 1, 5	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Intel RST SATA RAID 0, 1, 5, 10	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Intel RST for CPU-attachedIntel PCIe Storage	Yes	Yes	No	No	No

Q370 is the corporate-minded member of this family, with support for Intel's vPro, while H310 is the most budget-minded of the lot. (We haven't received an H310 board for review yet.) H370 makes a host of changes, apart from the big one in all of these new chipsets: no CPU overclocking. It drops the ability to split CPU-based PCI lanes across multiple devices; it reduces the number of USB 3.1/3.0 ports to four and eight; it reduces the maximum number of chipset PCIe lanes to 20; it limits Intel RST to two NVMe drives; and it removes the ability to use RST with CPU-based NVMe drives. That still leaves enough resources to fill out a basic ATX or even a somewhat-elaborate MicroATX motherboard configuration; on our next page, we’re about to show you an ASRock H370 Mini-ITX motherboard, in a form factor that could be a little cramped to use all those features.

B360, a step down from H370, makes a few more sacrifices. The key changes? This chipset drops to 24 total HSIO lanes (which includes everything from PCIe to SuperSpeed USB), reduces the maximum number of USB 3.0 ports (to six), reduces the maximum number of PCIe lanes (to 12), limits Intel RST to a single NVMe drive, and loses integrated RAID capability for SATA drives. One might think this cheaper chipset a good match for the connector limitations inherent in Mini-ITX. On page four, we'll investigate a B360 MicroATX motherboard and see how the limitations of both the chipset and form factor shape up against each other.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

ASRock H370M-ITX/ac: The Single Shot?

The H370 chipset is one step above the B360 in connectivity. So how would you go about using those extra HSIO pathways within the cramped quarters of a Mini-ITX board?

Perhaps you’d add some M.2 slots to the underside? Maybe you’d add a couple of PCIe-based USB 3.0 controllers, despite the onboard 3.1, just to fill out the I/O panel with more ports? And then, maybe you’d use that integrated USB 3.1 controller to feed 10Gb/s ports to both the I/O panel and the front panel?

Those things weren’t part of ASRock’s plan in this around-$110 board. Let's see what was.

Specifications

Rather than try to build a high-end board from a mainstream chipset, ASRock configured the H370M-ITX/ac as a low-cost board with a few added features, such as dual Gigabit Ethernet and a 433Mb/s Wi-Fi controller. Integrated USB appears to be the firm’s primary impetus for using the H370 rather than B360, as we find the eight high-bandwidth ports split as four USB 3.1 and two USB 3.0 ports on the back, plus a two-port front-panel USB 3.0 header. Two USB 2.0 ports allow users to connect a keyboard and mouse without dipping into the chipset’s USB 3.0/3.1 limitations.

Buyers also get three outputs for onboard graphics, in the form of two HDMI outputs and one DisplayPort output. Given the broad number of mainstream features, we’re left to question the lack of Type-C connectors. Hasn’t the latest generation of smartphones driven those into the mainstream?

The top of the H370M-ITX/ac features a single M.2 slot and two DIMM slots, six SATA ports, one USB 3.0 and one USB 2.0 front-panel header, three four-pin fan connectors, front-panel audio, and a TPM module interface. Nothing is blocking the single PCIe x16 slot, though a large CPU cooler could block access to the two SATA ports on the inboard side of the DIMM slots. The M.2 Key-E Wi-Fi controller is encased in a special riser module, but there is no CNVi capability for those considering a swap to Intel’s new 1.73Gb/s card.

Unlike a shot of espresso, the H370M-ITX/ac probably isn't as strong as the regular grind: Its six-phase voltage regulator includes 60A-rated chokes, but current limit throttling is used to protect the MOSFETs from overload when using Prime95 with the Core i7-8700K. So we didn't indulge in that kind of extremity. Understanding that a $300+ processor is out of market range, we're instead testing these boards with the Core i3-8350K. For what it's worth, we're also told that it's safe to increase the power threshold when using high-end Core i7s, since any real overload would trip the thermal trigger before any damage was done.

The H370M-ITX/ac includes a manual, an I/O shield, a driver disc, two SATA cables, two Wi-Fi antennas, and a foil case badge.

Firmware

The H370M-ITX/ac's BIOS opens to an “Easy Mode” interface where users can do little more than set boot order, SATA RAID mode, and fan profile. Slapping the keyboard’s F6 key brings up the Advanced Mode GUI, where we noted an OC Tweaker menu. That's vestigial and would be better suited to a board with overclocking functions that are missing from the H370 chipset.

The OC Tweaker menu includes submenus for CPU, DRAM, and Voltage configuration, along with storage for up to five user-defined configurations and the ability to transfer those to and from a USB flash drive.

Because the chipset imposes a DDR4-2666 limit on a CPU’s memory controller, and our CPU is further limited to DDR4-2400, the best way to increase memory performance is through latency optimization. A full set of primary through tertiary timings, along with a wide variety of additional memory settings, is available to tuning fanatics.

Though a few users have experimented with underclocking to reach optimal power-per-performance levels, the H370M-ITX/ac lacks the ability to tune the processor frequency and/or voltage downward. DRAM is still tunable, so the board retains that voltage adjustment.

Users can change the entry GUI from Easy to Advanced mode from the Advanced menu of Advanced mode. (We'll wait while you read that a few times for clarity.)

The Tools section includes an email sender for ASRock support, a “RAID Installer” that copies drivers to a USB flash drive, a firmware flash utility for USB flash drives, an ASRock server-polling utility for new firmware files, and a network configuration page that lets users configure the onboard controller for any custom network settings required to use the other internet-based tools.

Only one of the fan headers can be switched from PWM- to voltage-based speed control. The FAN-Tastic Tuning menu allows users to pick from viewed slopes, or create their own.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Gigabyte H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi: The Full Pot?

Topping our features list among these three non-Z mainstream boards, Gigabyte's H370 Aorus Gaming 3 leverages all of the H370 chipset’s advancements beyond Z370, including the integrated USB 3.1 Gen2 controller (two ports on the back, one front-panel header) and the support for CNVi we mentioned earlier--that is, Intel’s new 1.73Gb/s Wi-Fi controller.

As the image above shows, the H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi also gets a giant serving of RGB LEDs, both in the form of onboard lighting and external device headers. External headers include a pair of RGBW headers and a pair of Addressable LED strip headers; the latter includes a jumper on each header to select between 5V and 12V strip power.

As for onboard lighting, the combination of a lighted extension cover on the PCH heat sink, lighted DIMM slots, and a light bar at the front edge has us asking: Why no lighting under the I/O connector shroud? The inclusion of DIMM lighting would have us expect something closer to an “all-in” lighting approach. Then again, this is H370, not Z370; we suppose Gigabyte had to leave something in reserve for the higher-end boards.

Specifications

Four USB 2.0 ports help to boost I/O-panel connectivity here without exceeding the H370’s HSIO resources, since they don’t consume any. Faster are the two USB 3.1 Gen1 ports, and faster still are the Type-A and Type-C USB 3.1 Gen2 ports. We’re not seeing any added features here, as even the Gigabit Ethernet port is fed by Intel’s i219 PHY, but at least the audio ports use Realtek’s high-end ALC1220 codec. The Wi-Fi antenna connectors missing from the I/O panel have been displaced to an expansion-slot breakout plate.

By putting the second M.2 slot where a fourth PCIe slot might have gone, Gigabyte even gives builders the perfect place to put the slot cover without interfering with other devices. That’s not a huge deal, seeing as a double-wide graphics card will block one physical PCIe x1 connector while leaving an empty space beneath that connector. We can’t be certain why Gigabyte didn’t swap the position of the second M.2 storage slot with the second PCIe x1 slot, and though we can guess that it could have had something to do with M.2 drive cooling, we’d then begin to wonder why Gigabyte didn’t simply leave out the second x1 slot and reassign its HSIO resource elsewhere. The second M.2 slot has only two pathways, and that leads us into a resource-allocation discussion.

The first PCIe x16 slot is fed by the CPU’s PCIe controller and doesn’t count toward the chipset’s 30-lane limit. The second x16-length slot has four chipset lanes, the four x1 slots have fixed pathways, and only one of the six SATA ports is a potential share (in the unlikely event that it gets lost to a SATA-based M.2 card). The upper and lower M.2 drive slots consume four and two lanes (respectively), the two rear-panel USB 3.0 ports takes up two more HSIO resources, the front-panel USB 3.0 header consumes only one HSIO through a USB hub, the USB 3.1 front-panel header consumes one HSIO since it's only connected to a Gen1 interface, and our math says that the four of the remaining six HSIO serve rear-panel USB 3.1 Gen2 ports. The two remaining HSIO pathways would seam to go to an unused M.2 Key-E interface, since the CNVi connector is cross-compatible with Key-E devices. All that said, for a budget-minded PC, the second (two-path) M.2 storage slot may likely go unused, rendering its lane count moot.

Both the single-port USB 3.1 and dual-port USB 3.0 front-panel connectors are located above the graphics card’s slot, though the former limits the length of any card installed in the top x1 slot to 7.2”. An aluminum sink covers the top M.2 storage slot, which is the one most people will want to use first, since it's the one that has a full PCIe x4 interface.

An old-fashioned serial breakout cable header is placed at the middle of the bottom edge, and if you can, ahem, COMPort yourself around such things, you’ll be able to use the USB 2.0, Thunderbolt add-in-card, Trusted Platform Module (TPM), fan, and power/reset/activity headers in front of it, and/or the RGBW, digital LED strip, S/PDIF breakout, and front-panel-audio headers behind it.

The H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi includes a driver disc and documentation, two SATA cables, the Intel 9560NGW Wi-Fi module (with an antenna breakout plate and documentation), a Gigabyte Wi-Fi antenna, Gigabyte’s G-Connector bundling bracket (for front-panel-button and activity-LED leads), an I/O shield, and an Aorus case badge.

Firmware

The H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi's firmware opens to the “M.I.T.” menu of its “Classic” GUI, which is a launching point for system tuning pages traditionally affiliated with overclocking. Of course, given the H370 chipset, there will be no overclocking here, unless perhaps you’re simply trying to push your DDR4-2133 to DDR4-2400.

Our Core i3-8350K CPU is limited to DDR4-2400, but H370 places its own data-rate limit of DDR4-2666 when used with higher-model processors. Those with slower memory can still overclock to the CPU or chipset limit, and even optimize latency for quicker response times after reaching those limits.

The Advanced Voltage Settings submenu is a launching point for even more submenus. But if you’re only able to overclock the memory, you’ll probably need only the DIMM and System Agent voltage settings. And with the chipset’s DDR4-2666 ceiling, adjusting the System Agent voltage also seems like overkill.

Other submenus from M.I.T. include system monitor readings, a legacy 3DMark setting, and a fan-slope control.

A simplified version of Gigabyte's RGB Fusion lighting control is found within the Peripherals menu. Its main advantage over software control is…that it doesn’t require installing or loading any additional software.

If you’d like to get a more complicated “Easy Mode” GUI, just click the icon from Classic mode to go there instantly.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

MSI B360M Mortar: The Micro Grande?

Perhaps people who understand how "Grande" describes a medium-size cup of Joe would also understand how the term "micro" can be used to describe the middle value in certain other contexts...like MicroATX?

To the builders who would prefer to plug their ears and repeat “MicroATX is too big,” we would like to remind them that the extra DIMM slots can come in handy. While PCIe slots are of greater importance to some builders, all builders should be able to appreciate the ability to upgrade memory. This was our conclusion when we recently tried to upgrade from 16GB to 32GB on a Mini-ITX office machine, only to be confounded by the 8GB-per-DIMM limit of DDR3.

That quibble aside, MSI makes reasonable use of space on other parts of this board, adding a four-lane x16-length slot to the bottom, as well as an M.2 slot above each x16-length slot. Due to the B360 chipset’s limitations, though, the second M.2 slot works only when the bottom PCIe slot is empty. Perhaps the B360 chipset would have made more sense on a Mini-ITX board?

Specifications

You probably wouldn’t want to put a graphics card in the bottom slot here, anyway, since your case probably has a USB 3.0 front-panel cable, and MSI puts that header directly beneath the expansion slot. The front panel button/LED group and two perpendicular SATA ports are forward of that connector, while headers for USB 2.0, TPM, Thunderbolt add-in-card, RGB LED, and front-panel audio are aft of it. Two more SATA ports face forward at the board’s upper edge, and above that is a single USB 3.1 Gen2 front-panel header, just in case your chassis is a fully modern one that can make use of that header type.

You also get four four-pin fan headers surrounding the CPU area, and all of them can switch between PWM- and voltage-based speed regulation. Features like that add to items like the seven-phase voltage regulator, oversize heat sinks, and metal PCIe x16 slot reinforcement to let the customer know they’re not buying a cut-rate board, but a solid motherboard with a pared-down chipset.

The I/O panel features two USB 3.1 Gen2 ports and four USB 2.0 ports, but it completely lacks USB 3.0 (that is, USB 3.1 Gen1) ports, again due to the chipset’s limited resources. Most of the I/O panel’s remaining space is filled by PS/2, DVI-D, DisplayPort 1.2, HDMI 1.4, and Gigabit Ethernet ports, a digital optical audio port, and five analog audio jacks. Rather than conceal the tops of the connector block with plastic, MSI has designed its extended voltage regulator sink to partially shroud those connectors while sustaining a Core i7-8700K at max load.

The B360M Mortar’s installation kit includes a full user manual, a software and driver disc, an I/O shield, two SATA cables, a quick-installation guide, a thank-you note, and an MSI Dragon case badge.

Firmware

MSI’s Click BIOS 5 opens the first time to its EZ Mode GUI, but it remembers which GUI you were using when you exited so that, if you exited from Advanced Mode, that’s what you’ll see next time. The keyboard’s F7 key toggles between these interfaces. Users can do things like change boot order here, but even that task is easier for some of us from Advanced mode. Oh, and there’s the XMP memory mode enable button, which persists on both GUIs.

We’re testing with an unlocked CPU, but that doesn’t make much difference when used with a locked chipset (unless someone finds a workaround). As such, we don’t see a bunch of overclock settings, but users are welcome to set memory data rate up to DDR4-2666 on Core i5 and Core i7 models. Our Core i3-8350K’s memory multiplier is capped at 9x when using the 133MHz memory base clock offered by this board. (Multiply clock speed by two to get data rate.)

Regardless of whether your build is limited by the chipset’s DDR4-2666 limit or the Core i3’s DDR4-2400 limit, the B360M Mortar lets users shoot for more memory performance via timing adjustments, in which lower latency settings provide quicker response times.

MSI’s Memory-Z allows users to read configuration tables from each module’s SPD IC.

Other menus allow users to store up to six custom settings as “overclocking” profiles, import or export those saved files, set custom fan slopes, and view detected add-in devices. Hovering over the CPU makes it show the model, and the same method opens a popup menu for the I/O panel and internal header groups, where pointing at a port allows you to see what’s detected there.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

We also chose the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti for its performance-to-price ratio. The two-fan cooler of MSI’s Gaming X version gives us reduced noise while still fitting within two slots.

Having pushed this article’s budget close to its limit, we decided to stick with RAM we have on-hand. G.Skill’s recently-reviewed Ripjaws V 3200 barely carries any pricing premium, could allow overclocking if anyone were to unlock a similar platform, and kept us within budget. Our CPU supports DDR4-2400 at both 9x 133MHz and 12x 100MHz settings, and if anyone ever figures out how to fool a system into using the higher 12x multiplier with the higher 133MHz base clock, the resulting 1600MHz frequency would get us to DDR4-3200.

The Core i3-8350k does not include a cooler, and we understand that most buyers will be looking for one priced between $20 and $40. While it’s possible to find a $40 cooler that performs as well as our old Noctua NH-U12S, the reason we retained it is that it was already in-hand. As with any build, reusing old components where possible is the best way to save money!

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Comparison Products

ASRock H370M-ITX/ac

Gigabyte H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi

MSI B360M Mortar

We’re comparing today’s samples to the most-average Z370 Mini-ITX motherboard we could find. Since “most average” is not exactly a compliment, we’re giving it the title “Reference Data” in our charts.

Benchmark Settings
Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613 Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0 Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21 CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write 128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMO OpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8 Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3 Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9 Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68a BMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02 THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command-line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64 PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64 PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit) PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of the Singularity	Version 1.31.21360 High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAA Crazy Preset - 1920x1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, Rain Medium Preset, No AF Ultra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64 High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AF Very High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252 Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AF Ultra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

Synthetic Benchmarks

The point of including a Z370 motherboard in an H370/B360 roundup was to show how chipset selection should be based on features, not on some slim gradations of performance. The only performance benefits of the Z-series should be in overclocking and in high-data-rate memory support.

Strangely, the H370 boards outperformed both the B360 and Z370 in 3DMark. We should probably look at some other tests before drawing any conclusions.

The PCMark data we got from testing fits within the benchmark’s normal variations, Sandra’s CPU and DRAM tests show nothing askew, and everything’s normal in GPU-heavy Compubench. Let’s see what games tell us...

Game Testing

ASRock’s H370M-ITX/ac fell slightly behind at the lower settings of two benchmarks, but the other three boards battled it out to par. So the oddity in 3DMark Graphics scoring simply hasn’t shown up in real-world tests.

Timed Applications

Less completion time means more performance in timed benchmarks, and all of these show no noticeable performance variation based on chipset selection.

Power, Heat & Efficiency

We sometimes re-use data tables, and the ones used today were a copy of our Z370 data set. A funny thing happened when replacing the former system’s Core i7-8700K/GTX 1080 data with that of today’s Core i3-8350K/GTX 1050 Ti: The efficiency scores didn’t change. Depending on the motherboard, efficiency scores for the “lighter” test system were split around the average of the “heavy” system. After noticing that, we cleared the old data to get a clean look at the current data.

The Z system drew the least power at full CPU load, but that might be because the higher-priced boards typically use higher-quality voltage-regulation components. Looking at the H370 and B360 boards, the numbers appear to indicate that the smaller the board, the less energy it uses.

We should probably let you know now that these motherboards were not tested in the alphabetically organized order shown, nor in the reverse order, and appeared random when organized by form factor. The ASRock H370M-ITX/ac set our memory to 1.35V by default, and its added DIMM voltage probably has something to do with its higher CPU temperature.

Since all the boards in today’s comparison produced performance within 1% of each other, the efficiency chart is mostly a reflection of the average of full-load and no-load energy data. The H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi has the most features of the B360 and H370 boards tested, and it also has the highest full-load power consumption.

Other Observations

As the chipset would indicate, only the Z-series board was overclock-capable, and base clock manipulation was the only way to overclock the RAM past DDR4-2400 on the tested Core i3-8350K. The CPU did surprisingly well, pushing our DDR4-3200 to DDR4-3504 despite the CPU's ostensible limits.

Since all of today’s boards performed similarly, the performance-per-dollar “value” chart simply reflects motherboard price. For around $100, the B360M Mortar has a little too much board for the chipset. (It could have used a couple more lanes.) Still, it seems a reasonable value in a MicroATX motherboard, if overclocking is not on your wish list, and you won't be tapping out all the lanes with a full complement of hardware.

In contrast to the MSI Mortar, for around $110, the ASRock H370M-ITX/ac has a little too much chipset for the board, leaving PCIe pathways unused. Dual Gigabit Ethernet and low-cost Wi-Fi appear to be worth more than its around-$10 price difference. But potential Z-series buyers hoping to save money by opting for an H-series board might be a little disappointed about its inclusion of only a single M.2 storage interface.

Meanwhile, the H370 Aorus Gaming 3 WiFi offers Intel’s 1.73Gb/s wireless controller and a bunch of RGB lighting for around $140. We'd willingly pay up to $130 to fill a specific need, and we wouldn’t be surprised if launch-week discounts (or subsequent ones) get this board to that price by the time you read this. At that price, for enthusiasts who want a keen combination of bling and connectivity features but not overclocking, this board looks to be a solid option.

Bear in mind, of course, that these are the first three new-chipset Coffee Lake boards that we got in hand, and we haven't tested any H310-based models yet at all. We expect to see further solid options in this arena as time goes on. So take these three boards in the early going simply as reasonable, on-point budget Coffee board picks--but far from the only ones that will emerge.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Intel NUC 8 VR (NUC8i7HVK) Review: Core i7, AMD Vega Meet in Hades Canyon

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:00:00 +0000

Splashing Into Kaby Lake-G

We usually hear rumors of new processor launches months before they happen, so truly earth-shaking announcements are rare. But AMD’s disclosure last year that it was creating a semi-custom GPU for its bitter rival Intel was genuinely surprising.

As a result, though, Intel's eighth-gen mobile Core processor rides on the same package as an AMD Radeon RX Vega graphics chip, complemented by 4GB of HBM2. This configuration is meant to address the shortcomings of Intel's own HD Graphics engine, allowing mini-PCs, thin-and-lights, and notebooks to deliver a smoother gaming experience. Intel claims its new chips should serve up similar graphics performance as Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q.

The processors are also fast enough to drive larger devices like the overclockable 100W Hades Canyon NUC we're testing today. A graphics card shortage continues to confound gamers, so this launch couldn't come at a better time for Intel. Can a marriage of two unlikely bedfellows capture the hearts of enthusiasts, though?

Intel NUC 8 VR

Intel crams as much performance as possible into its Hades Canyon NUCs. The overclockable $1000 NUC8i7HVK "NUC 8 VR" is based on a 100W Core i7-8809G, while the $800 NUC8i7HNK dials back to a 65W Core i7-8705G. Both are barebones platforms though, meaning you'll need to spend even more on memory, storage, and an operating system. At least the two NUCs are loaded with connectivity options. You get support for up to six 4K displays, Thunderbolt 3, and 7.1-channel audio.

Intel NUC8i7HVK

Intel NUC8i7HNK

The VR NUC specifically includes provisions for overclocking the CPU, GPU, HBM2, and system memory. Clearly, Intel designed the NUC8i7HVK with enthusiasts in mind. After all, its case features Intel's Skulltrail logo up top, illuminated by LEDs, while the power button sports lighting that you can adjust.

These NUCs occupy 1.2L enclosures, which are slightly larger than the previous-gen Skull Canyon model. They accommodate up to 32GB (2 x 16GB) of DDR4-2400 memory in SO-DIMMs running at 1.2V, though you can overclock beyond DDR4-3466 with a capable kit. You're also able to install a pair of M.2 SSDs in either SATA or NVMe flavors. Naturally, the 100-series chipset supports Intel's blistering-fast Optane drives, too.

Intel covers its NUC with a three-year warranty, though that doesn't include damage incurred by overclocking. Whereas Intel will sell you a policy to protect its K-series CPUs, there is no option to purchase overclocking coverage for the NUC.

Intel Kaby Lake-G MCM

Intel officially calls its new hybrid CPU/GPU packages eighth-gen Core mobile processors with Radeon RX Vega M graphics. We prefer the Kaby Lake-G code name, though, so we're sticking with that. The company doesn't license AMD's technology for these multi-chip modules. Instead, Intel buys them just like AMD's other customers, then integrates them onto MCMs.

The new design combines a CPU (right), Vega graphics (middle), and HBM2 memory (left) onto one package. Like all Intel processors of this class, Kaby Lake-G comes equipped with 20 third-gen PCIe lanes, eight of which are monopolized by the GPU. The package also connects to a PCH across a four-lane DMI 3.0 link.

Kaby Lake-G features one small HBM2 stack connected to AMD's GPU through EMIB (Embedded Multi-Die Interconnect Bridge) technology. In a nutshell, the EMIB interconnect is a packaging capability that ties discrete chips together via silicon bridges. It eliminates interposers, thereby reducing package thickness to 1.7mm. The interconnect also consumes less power than interposer designs, and allows Intel to place the HBM2 and GPU closer together. This minimizes physical dimensions, improves bandwidth, and reduces latency.

As an example of what this form factor enables, Kaby Lake-G processors can fit into 16mm-thick devices like the Dell XPS 15 2-in-1 we recently examined. That's much thinner than the ~26mm z-height typical of notebooks with discrete GPUs.

Intel Core i7-8809G

Intel carves its mobile processors into the U-series for mainstream mobility, the G-series for thin-and-lights with integrated graphics, and H-series processors for the high-performance segment. Kaby Lake-G packages use H-series CPUs.

Intel Processors	Core i7-8809G	Core i7-8709G	Core i7-8706G	Core i7-8705G	Core i5-8350G
TDP / SDP	100W	100W	65W	65W	65W
Core/Threads	4 / 8	4 / 8	4 / 8	4 / 8	4 / 8
Base Frequency (GHz)	3.1	3.1	3.1	3.1	2.8
Boost Frequency (GHz)	4.2	4.1	4.1	4.1	3.8
L3 Cache (MB)	8	8	8	8	6
Memory Channels	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel
Memory Speed	DDR4-2400	DDR4-2400	DDR4-2400	DDR4-2400	DDR4-2400
Unlocked CPU, GPU, HBM2	Yes	No	No	No	No
Discrete Graphics	Radeon RX Vega M GH	Radeon RX Vega M GH	Radeon RX Vega M GL	Radeon RX Vega M GL	Radeon RX Vega M GL
Intel HD Graphics	630	630	630	630	630
Graphics Boost Frequency (MHz)	up to 1100	up to 1100	up to 1100	up to 1100	up to 1100
Intel vPro Technology	No	No	Yes	No	No

Intel only uses the Core i7-8809G and -8705G in its NUCs; other Kaby Lake-G models will find homes in mobility-focused devices. The 14nm+ CPU dies are paired with either Radeon RX Vega M GH or Radeon RX Vega M GL GPUs. The GH cleverly stands for "Graphics High," while GL means (you guessed it) "Graphics Low." The GH models have a 100W TDP, whereas the GL models are rated at 65W.

The flagship Core i7-8809G features four Hyper-Threaded cores and 8MB of L3 cache. It accelerates up to 4.2 GHz via Turbo Boost, but has a base clock rate of 3.1 GHz.

All Kaby Lake-Gs support dual-channel DDR4-2400 (no ECC) memory. You'll notice that they also sport HD Graphics 630 and AMD's discrete GPU, too. Intel doesn't use its integrated engine for either NUC's display outputs. Instead, that hardware remains available for OpenCL-based compute workloads and QuickSync-accelerated software.

Some Kaby Lake-G products will use HD Graphics 630 for driving up to three 4K monitors. In those cases, the processor will power gate (turn off) the Vega GPU and its HBM2 during light graphics workloads.

Processors	Core i7-8809G, i7-8709G	Core i7-8706G, i7-8705G, i5-8305G	Ryzen 2400G	Ryzen 2200G
Graphics Version	Radeon RX Vega M GH	Radeon RX Vega M GL	-	-
Architecture	Vega M	Vega M	Vega	Vega
Compute Units	24	20	11	8
Stream Processors	1536	1280	704	512
Base GPU Clock (MHz)	1063	931	?	?
Boost GPU Clock (MHz)	1190	1011	1250	1100
Memory Bandwidth (GB/s)	204.8	179.2	-	-
Peak Power Consumption	130W	?	-	-
Peak SP Performance (TFLOPS)	up to 3.7	up to 2.6	up to 1.76	up to 1.126
Texture Units	96	80	44	32
ROP Pixels/clk	64	32	16	16
Memory Bus	1024-bit	1024-bit	-	-
High Bandwidth Cache	4GB HBM2	4GB HBM2	-	-

The Radeon RX Vega M GH sports 24 CUs, totaling 1536 Stream processors. It features a base clock rate of 1063 MHz that stretches up to 1190 MHz. Four gigabytes (4-hi stack) of HBM2 run at 800 MHz and provide up to 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, or half of Radeon RX Vega 56's 410 GB/s with two 4-hi stacks (8GB) of HBM2. Of course, performance isn't comparable: the GH provides up to 3.7 TFLOPS of peak SP performance, while Vega 56 is theoretically capable of 10.5 TFLOPS.

Radeon RX Vega M GL employs 20 CUs, and offers lower base/boost frequencies of 931 and 1011 MHz, respectively. Its HBM2 operates at 700 MHz and pushes up to 179.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Single-precision compute is rated at up to 2.6 TFLOPS.

Comparisons to AMD's Ryzen 5 2400G and 2200G are inevitable, but misguided. The Raven Ridge processors are a single-die implementation with far fewer CUs and no local memory. Instead, it relies on system memory. We've shown that this limits the architecture's performance, ultimately forcing both models into a lower tier.

MORE: Best PC Builds

MORE: How To Build A PC

MORE: All PC Builds Content

Connectivity & Teardown

Intel sent over a NUC VR outfitted with its 118GB Optane SSD 800P, a 512GB 545s SSD, and 2 x 8GB Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 SO-DIMMs. There's a bundled VESA mount for hanging the NUC off the back of a monitor, too, but we think that's a waste of Intel's attractive design. The NUC8i7HVK comes with a 230W external power supply, stepping up big time from its predecessor's 120W PSU. Our understanding is that the power supply is so much larger in order to facilitate overclocking. The power supply is one of the NUC's three protective layers, so it has an integrated breaker that shuts everything down if you exceed the 230W limit.

As far as connectivity goes, you get three USB 3.1 (Gen2) Type-C ports (one front, two rear), two of which support Thunderbolt 3. The rear panel also sports two mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. AMD's Vega GPU can drive up to six independent 4K displays (five of them at 60 Hz) simultaneously. Naturally, FreeSync is supported, along with driver-based features like Radeon Chill and WattMan.

The NUC also supports PlayReady 3.0 and will play back Ultra HD Blu-rays with HDR. A front-facing HDMI 2.0a port may come in handy for connecting a VR headset, while a second HDMI port on the back is better suited for HTPC duties. Along those lines, 7.1-channel audio is supported over the optical, HDMI, and DisplayPort interfaces. In a first for Intel's NUC family, the flagship comes with two LAN ports (powered by an Intel i219-LM and i210-AT NIC), too. As if that wasn't enough I/O, you also get a USB 3.1 Gen2 connector up front and four USB 3.0 ports on the back. Intel integrates a quad-microphone array and an infrared sensor for remote control. Plus, the design includes an SDXC slot that supports UHS-I.

Internally, the NUC has three M.2 slots. One is dedicated to an Intel Wireless-AC 8265 card that supports 802.11ax 2x2 and Bluetooth v4.2, while the other two accommodate SSDs (one 2280 and one 2242) in either SATA or NVMe flavors. We also spot two USB 2.0 headers.

The Hades Canyon NUC has a nice smooth plastic exterior and a satisfying heft to it. Underneath, there's a metal shroud secured with a single fastener. Removing the shroud reveals the 100-series motherboard and two angled SO-DIMMs. We also spot the two SSDs, plus the motherboard's poorly-placed BIOS reset jumper. You'll have to disassemble Intel's platform to reset its BIOS if you somehow end up stuck.

Next, we removed four screws in the corners and slid off the plastic outer ring. Then we removed four screws on the cooling retention bracket in the motherboard's center. After extricating a few more fasteners, we popped the motherboard free of the thermal solution. Intel's board utilizes a five-phase power subsystem that flanks the MCM. An HM175 platform controller hub is visible over to the right side in our pictures; it isn't cooled by a heat sink.

Kaby Lake-G package is soldered down, so there's no way to drop this MCM into a socketed motherboard. The exposed dies make direct contact with a large, copper sink connected to a T-shaped fin stack. Unfortunately, the thermal paste that Intel uses isn't particularly good; we'd recommend replacing it with a higher-quality compound. Two fans pull air in from under the NUC, blow it through the fin stack, and exhaust it out the chassis.

Power Management

The small Kaby Lake-G package is perfect for thin and light form factors. However, it still presents thermal challenges, given a 100W rating. Intel measures power between the CPU and GPU during normal workloads, claiming one subsystem or the other is rarely loaded down exclusively. The company describes this measurement as its System Design Point. Consequently, peak TDP could be higher than 100W, even at stock settings.

Reducing the amount of power a device consumes helps mitigate heat output. Intel's previous-gen processors featured two power rails, one dedicated to the CPU and another for the GPU. But Kaby Lake-G uses a single rail for both components to enable power sharing. This allows the SoC to dedicate more current to heavily-utilized resources, boosting instantaneous performance and saving power over time.

The HBM2 also falls under the same power management policies. A unique set of software drivers and interfaces process telemetry data from the three units (CPU, GPU, HBM2) so the processor can manage heat, power delivery, and performance in real time.

Intel says its new dynamic tuning system delivers the same performance (measured as frames per watt) while consuming 18% less power.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Overclocking & Test Setup

Overclocking

Thermal boundaries limit the NUC VR's performance. Thus, we kicked the fans up to 100% for all of our overclocking experiments, even though that resulted in much more noise than the pleasant-sounding Balanced profile.

A 230W limit is enforced by the power supply, though Intel's NUC also throttles performance in response to over-temperature conditions on the motherboard's voltage regulation circuitry or the Kaby Lake-G package itself. This throttling behavior stopped us well short of ever approaching the 230W barrier. In fact, we topped out at 197W with our Kill-A-Watt during our overclocking attempts.

Well-supported utilities like HWiNFO and AIDA do not report the package power consumption and temperatures of the Hades Canyon components correctly, making it difficult to log thermal data accurately. We will follow up with this data once the developers update their tools. We also monitored CPU and GPU frequencies during our testing to detect throttling.

Overclocking the NUC is all about balance, so Intel suggests tuning it based on your workload. While you can overclock the CPU, GPU, and HBM2, limited cooling capacity prevents you from tuning all three components to their maximum potential at the same time. You can focus on ultimate CPU performance or optimized GPU performance, but not both.

We used AMD's WattMan pane to overclock the GPU and HBM2. Interestingly, Intel's management utility looks remarkably like AMD's Radeon Settings window outfitted with Intel's logo and blue trim (hint: it is).

NUC 8 VR NUC8i7HVK	NUC 8 VR Stock	GPU 1350 MHz (HBM 800)	GPU 1350 MHz (HBM 900)	CPU 4.2 GHz (GPU Stock)	CPU 4.2 GHz (1250/900)
Core i7-8809G	Stock	Stock	Stock	4.2 GHz All-Core (1.05V)	4.2 GHz All-Core (1.05V)
Vega Graphics	Stock	1350 MHZ (1.1V)	1350 MHz (1.1V)	Stock	1250 MHz (1V)
HBM2	Stock	800 MHz (1.1V)	900 MHz (1.1V)	Stock	900 MHz (1V)
System Memory	Stock	Stock	Stock	DDR4-3200	DDR4-3200

We began by overclocking the GPU to 1350 MHz. Those settings are listed as GPU 1350 MHz (HBM 800) in the table above. This proved stable, and provided a solid boost to gaming performance. Then, we added HBM2 overclocking to the mix, listed as GPU 1350 MHz (HBM 900). Again, this gave us a few extra frames per second in our gaming benchmarks.

With solid graphics performance established, we decided to add increased CPU performance to the mix. To start, we overclocked the CPU with AMD's Vega GPU and HBM2 at stock settings. This gave us a 4.5 GHz ceiling at 1.05V with memory at DDR4-3200. Initially, we observed stable operation through our application suite (minus AVX-optimized tests). But even with the GPU in its default state, gaming workloads caused the platform to blue-screen.

At the point where we stopped seeing crashes, our CPU was running an all-core 4.2 GHz CPU overclock, listed as CPU 4.2 GHz (GPU Stock). Intel's Core i7-8809G already sports a single-core 4.2 GHz Turbo Boost frequency, but forcing all four cores to that clock rate yielded impressive results in our threaded application benchmarks. We also found that we couldn't drop the CPU voltage below 1.05V and still POST.

Finally, we slowly bumped our GPU and HBM2 frequencies up until all three overclockable components were running stably. This is listed as CPU 4.2 GHz (1250/900). As you can see in the table, we weren't able to apply as much voltage to the GPU and HBM2 with an overclocked CPU, so we settled for a slightly lower 1250 MHz GPU overclock.

You'll find all four configurations in our game testing to illustrate the software's response to various hardware settings. We also include the 4.5 GHz CPU results in our application testing, if only to highlight peak performance with a tuned host processor. We doubt that enthusiasts interested in overclocking would kick game performance to the curb in favor of slightly faster desktop apps.

Intel's AVX offset reduces frequency and voltage when it detects an AVX-optimized workload. We use this helpful feature to attain higher effective CPU overclocks on our desktops. But it's an even more important capability in a small form factor platform. For now, the NUC's AVX offset doesn't appear to be working correctly, which we reported to Intel. As a result, we do not include any AVX-based testing with HandBrake or y-cruncher for our overclocked configurations.

The BIOS' overclocking options are fairly Spartan. A few staples of modern tuning, such as Load Line Calibration control, are missing. This is likely due to Kaby Lake-G's power balancing capabilities. Intel expects enthusiasts to overclock primarily through its XTU, though we didn't see any equivalent controls in the software. Hopefully Intel refines its firmware to expose more knobs and dials. The NUC also needs an exterior BIOS reset button. There were several occasions during testing when holding down the power button did not work. Each time we had to remove the enclosure's cover and a secondary panel inside the NUC to access the BIOS reset jumper.

Test Setup

Kaby Lake-G is truly unique, so it's hard to find configurations to benchmark against. In this first round of testing, we're looking to determine whether the NUC 8 VR can replace low-end desktops as we weather a debilitating shortage of add-in graphics cards. As such, it goes up against several PCs featuring an Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060. On paper, that puts Intel's NUC at a theoretical disadvantage. But it also gives us some context. Meanwhile, we're amassing comparable small form factor systems with MXM-based 1060s for follow-up testing.

Test System & Configuration

Hardware

Intel LGA 1151 (Z370) @ 2666/2400AMD Socket AM4 @ 2667 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270) Common To AllGigabyte GeForce GTX 1060 G1 Gaming 6G 1TB 1500W (Creators Update Version 1703)

MORE: Best Graphics Cards

MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

MORE: All Graphics Content

AotS: Escalation, Civilization VI, Dawn Of War III

NUC 8 VR NUC8i7HVK	NUC 8 VR Stock	GPU 1350 MHz (HBM 800)	GPU 1350 MHz (HBM 900)	CPU 4.2 GHz (GPU Stock)	CPU 4.2 GHz (1250/900)
Core i7-8809G	Stock	Stock	Stock	4.2 GHz All-Core (1.05V)	4.2 GHz All-Core (1.05V)
Vega Graphics	Stock	1350 MHZ (1.1V)	1350 MHz (1.1V)	Stock	1250 MHz (1V)
HBM2	Stock	800 MHz (1.1V)	900 MHz (1.1V)	Stock	900 MHz (1V)
System Memory	Stock	Stock	Stock	DDR4-3200	DDR4-3200

The NUC 8 VR offers a wealth of tunable parameters, including CPU, GPU, HBM2, and system memory overclocking. Our stable configurations were detailed on the previous page; this table simply serves as a reminder as you peruse our results. If you aren't interested in overclocked performance, simply focus on the "VR NUC Stock" entry.

Ashes Of The Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation isn't very popular with gamers anymore, yet it is still widely used as a benchmark. That's because it relies heavily on host processing and still taxes the graphics subsystem. It serves as a solid example of the RTS genre, making it a great test for our NUC 8 VR overclocking experiments.

The 4C/8T stock NUC unsurprisingly jumps ahead of the 2C/4T Pentiums paired with GeForce GTX 1060 add-in cards. Tuning the NUC's GPU yields the largest speed-up in Ashes, even though we're looking at fairly small jumps overall. Granted, we're testing with maxed-out detail settings.

You'd probably want to play the game with its quality preset dialed back a couple of notches anyway. Notice that the NUC has a lower minimum frame rate than the competing setups. Although minimums only reflect the single lowest performance point, our frame time variance results confirm that Kaby Lake-G encounters more turbulence through our benchmark than the full-size desktops.

Civilization VI Graphics

Civilization exposes more separation between mobile- and desktop-class host processors than Ashes did. And yet, the biggest gains in this benchmark come from overclocking the NUC's graphics processor and HBM2. Tuning the CPU's four cores up to 4.2 GHz does very little to help.

Dawn Of War III

Each game behaves differently, depending on its bottleneck. In general, though, higher GPU frequencies and more memory bandwidth improve performance in most games played at 1920x1080 or higher. On its own, an overclocked host processor just doesn't move the bar in Dawn of War III.

It is impressive to see Intel's NUC 8 VR at least approach the level of a desktop CPU and add-in mainstream graphics card. Then again, the GeForce GTX 1060 clearly has room to stretch when it's paired up with more capable host processors (as evidenced by the difference between our Pentium G4560 and Core i3-8350K frame rates).

MORE: Best PC Builds

MORE: How To Build A PC

MORE: All PC Builds Content

Far Cry Primal, GTA: V, Hitman

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal is more graphics-intensive. As a result, we see a big gulf form between the NUC 8 VR and our desktop configurations.

Again, simply overclocking the GPU and HBM2 provides the best results. Intel's NUC is smooth enough to consider playable by our subjective measure, and the frame time variance measurements are encouraging. Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1060, not bottlenecked by CPU performance, is just quite a bit faster.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V responds best to GPU overclocking, unsurprisingly. But even the stock configuration is surprisingly capable under the game's Ultra preset.

Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1060 continues to scale as we swap out for faster CPUs. However, we only average one frame per second higher after overclocking the NUC's Core i7-8809G. Graphics still looks like this platform's bottleneck.

Hitman

The NUC also fares surprisingly well in Hitman. Intel's little powerhouse may disappoint some enthusiasts for its tendency to show up at the bottom of our charts. But in light of the hardware we're using to compare, it's impressive that Intel has a small form factor system able to hang in the same conversation.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War, Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

As we observed in How to Choose the Right CPU for 1080p Gaming, Middle-Earth: Shadow of War doesn't scale very well with host processing performance, and the gap between CPUs shrinks as we move downstream to less-capable GPUs. As such, this title responds best to increased graphics performance.

Intel's NUC8i7HVK may show up at the bottom of our charts, but it still provides a satisfying gaming experience for such a compact system.

Project CARS 2

Finally, we work our way down to Project CARS 2, which scales fairly well with increased processing power. Again, the NUC plays fairly smoothly even though its results don't necessarily impress. Dropping to a lower quality preset would undoubtedly help improve those average frame rates.

MORE: Best Graphics Cards

MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

MORE: All Graphics Content

Office & Productivity

Test Setup

NUC 8 VRNUC8i7HVK	NUC 8 VRStock	CPU 4.2 GHz (1250/900)	CPU 4.5 GHz
Core i7-8809G	Stock	4.2 GHz All-Core (1.05V)	4.5 GHz All-Core (1.05V)
Vega Graphics	Stock	1250 MHz (1V)	Stock
HBM2	Stock	900 MHz (1V)	Stock
System Memory	Stock	DDR4-3200	DDR4-3200

We include our stock and tuned CPU/GPU/HBM2 results in this round of benchmarks, along with data from our 4.5 GHz run. That overclocked setting turned out to be stable during all CPU stress tests and our application suite, but proved flaky through our game benchmarks (even with the Vega GPU at stock settings). Still, we include it as a demonstration of peak application performance if you optimize the NUC specifically for these workloads.

Adobe Creative Cloud

The NUC 8 VR lands in the middle of our expanded line-up for Adobe's Creative Cloud aggregate score. The 4C/8T CPU provides a nice balance between lightly- and heavily-threaded tasks. As expected, overclocking helps substantially, though the jump from 4.2 GHz to 4.5 GHz is smaller than we expected.

Web Browser

The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. Intel's NUC 8 VR is competitive throughout, placing third at its stock settings. Overclocked to 4.5 GHz, it leads the field.

The MotionMark benchmarks, which emphasize graphics performance (rather than JavaScript), are also sensitive to CPU clock rates. Whereas a moderate CPU/GPU overclock helps improve performance a little bit, the 4.5 GHz setup lands in first place, reminding us that host processing resources still play a large role in driving the graphics subsystem.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Naturally, that's particularly relevant to what we all do with our PCs every day. The test benefits from a refined storage subsystem and higher clock rates, affording the 4.5 GHz configuration an easy win. Even at stock settings, the NUC 8 VR matches Intel's quad-core Core i3-8100.

Spreadsheet-heavy tests emphasize clock rates even more, so it's no surprise that the agile 4.5 GHz configuration takes the lead over competing stock processors.

MORE: Best PC Builds

MORE: How To Build A PC

MORE: All PC Builds Content

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

Tuning the Kaby Lake-G processor to 4.5 GHz yields a first-place finish in the single-core Cinebench test by virtue of its frequency advantage. But even the fact that a stock NUC 8 VR nearly matches the Core i3-7350K impresses us.

Moving over to the multi-core test finds the NUC losing ground. After all, desktop-oriented CPUs tend to have more cores, larger power budgets, and beefier coolers. But the stock NUC8i7HVK still proves agile, besting AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X.

Kaby Lake-G doesn't look as hot in the single-core POV-Ray benchmark, and the CPUs with higher core/thread counts kick on their afterburners in the multi-core metric.

PCMark 10's Video Editing test finds the NUC 8 VR with an astonishing lead over a number of desktop CPUs. We re-ran it on each configuration, verifying the results and settings alike. In contrast, the NUC8i7HVK isn't as compelling in the Rendering and Visualization workload.

Encoding & Compression

LAME is the quintessential example of a single-threaded workload, so we fully expected the 4.5 GHz configuration to carve out a lead. Again, the NUC 8 VR is very competitive in light productivity tasks thanks to a snappy architecture and its ability to boost beyond 4 GHz and spin back down before crossing any thermal boundaries.

Our threaded compression and decompression tests adsorb data directly from system memory, thus removing storage from the performance equation. Both overclocked NUC configurations benefit from tuned memory that feeds the greedy cores with plenty of throughput. But AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X serves as a prime example of how parallelization helps improve performance in threaded applications.

Notice that the overclocked NUC configurations aren't in the HandBrake and y-cruncher charts. This is due to an apparent bug in Intel's AVX offset that affects clock rates in every workload (even idle) during an overclock, not just AVX-optimized software.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Thoughts

Our first experience with Intel's NUC8i7HVK leaves us impressed. The company crams an amazing amount of functionality into a very compact form factor. As we've come to expect from fast PCs in small cases, you'll have to pay a premium for such an uncommon combination. And even after spending $1000 on the barebones platform, memory, storage, and an OS still need to be added.

Given the lack of affordable graphics cards right now, we set out to determine whether this system is a suitable substitute for building a gaming box at marked-up prices. For comparison, we paired a number of inexpensive CPUs with Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (currently starting around $350). In some games, entry-level processors hold the GeForce back. And in those situations, Intel's NUC shows that it can compete. Other titles are inherently more graphics-bound, allowing Nvidia's card to walk away from the Vega GPU. Your experience will depend on what you're playing.

To show what all of that looks like in chart form, check out the geometric mean of 99th percentile frame times (representing smoothness) converted into a frames-per-second measurement.

Intel aims its NUC8i7HVK at enthusiasts with unlocked CPU, GPU, and HBM2 ratio multipliers. We observed solid stock performance from the svelte little system, and even managed to overclock effectively. But thermal constraints kept us from truly tapping into the maximum potential of every component. For gaming, the best results came from tuning the GPU and HBM2, while productivity-oriented apps responded best to higher CPU frequencies.

It's fair to say that the NUC8i7HVK is fast enough to deliver smooth frame rates at 1080p using high-quality settings in most games. If you want to run at a higher resolution or know your favorite games are more demanding than the ones we tested, then you may have to hold out for a return to normalcy with graphics card pricing. Otherwise, The NUC 8 VR's AMD Vega-based GPU comes close to an Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 in some of the platform-bound situations we discovered (and after overclocking).

Support may prove to be an interesting challenge for Intel, and we'll have to keep an eye on how the company handles driver updates. We're told that day-zero game drivers will become a thing, but they'll naturally need to originate from AMD. Whether Intel spends time validating that software before pushing it live remains to be seen. Enthusiasts will expect nothing less than timely optimizations for new titles, along with stability on par with Radeon RX Vega add-in cards.

Intel and AMD's competition with Nvidia in their respective fields may have been the impetus for a truly surprising cooperative effort. But the end result is an incredibly powerful solution packed into a very small form factor. While we wouldn't suggest that enthusiasts try replacing their gaming rigs altogether with Intel's NUC8i7HV, this compact platform makes for an interesting alternative to mainstream machines with mid-range GPUs currently selling at inflated prices.

MORE: Best Graphics Cards

MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

MORE: All Graphics Content

How to Choose the Right CPU for 1080p Gaming: 14 Processors Compared

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Fri, 23 Mar 2018 18:30:00 +0000

Introduction

Last year, we saw innovation from AMD and Intel that we hadn't experienced in a long, long time. The Zen architecture made AMD competitive in segments of the CPU market it previously couldn't touch, and Intel moved as quickly as possible to defend its incumbent position. We thoroughly enjoyed the back-and-forth as both companies jockeyed for enthusiasts' adoration.

But even as new platforms were springing up with more PCIe connectivity than ever before, graphics-card availability dried up. Cryptocurrency miners bought up everything they could find to capitalize on rising valuations. Even today, you can't find modern models anywhere near their suggested retail pricing. We've resorted to buying pre-built systems and scouring the forums for previous-generation cards, trying to score a bargain.

The best spread of CPU technology in ages, paired with sky-high GPU prices, is a recipe for confusion for PC builders. For the same amount of money, enthusiasts can afford less graphics performance than they could not long ago. That makes it easy to overspend on host processing, since balance is thrown out of whack. But you can also get a lot more CPU for your dollar than this time a year ago. How do you make sure you're getting the most for your budget?

Well, we set out on a mission with 14 CPUs and three different GPUs to find the best combination in nine popular games.

Moving The Goalposts

For the last 11 years, Core i7 and Core i5 CPUs featured four cores. Coffee Lake changed this. Now, Core i3s sport four cores, Core i5s include six cores, and Core i7s boast six Hyper-Threaded cores. Intel also gave its low- and high-end models a makeover: Skylake-X stretches up to 18 cores/32 threads for high-end desktops, while Pentium processors have now gained Hyper-Threading technology.

Of course, AMD introduced its line-up of Ryzen 7, 5, and 3 models with copious core counts. Moreover, the Ryzen Threadripper series landed with up to 16 cores/32 threads and such friendly prices that Intel was forced to make its Skylake-X chips more affordable.

The Contenders

As you might imagine, the old rules of picking a CPU family to go with certain graphics cards changed as a result of these new processors. Thus, we decided to investigate using the best performers from each CPU class.

Representing AMD, we have the Ryzen 7, 5, and 3 models. We didn't bother testing last-generation Bulldozer-based CPUs, but we did throw in the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X for good measure.

For Intel, we have K-series Core i7, i5, and i3 CPUs from the Coffee Lake and Kaby Lake generations. We also added the Core i9-7900X and Core i9-7980XE to cover high-end desktops. Out of curiosity (or because we're gluttons for benchmarking punishment?), we couldn't help but include two of the latest Pentium processors, too.

That gives us 14 processors spread across five test platforms. We paired these with the GeForce GTX 1080, GTX 1070, and GTX 1060 (6GB) graphics cards. Although the GTX 1080 is considered an extravagance these days, we have to imagine it'll come down in price someday.

Finally, we selected nine games for testing. Some of the titles are new, while others are older. We did weigh the suite, though, more toward modern games. Some of them are CPU-dependent, others are decidedly graphics-bound, and a few are actually pretty well split down the middle. This allows us to explore bottlenecks from different angles.

Today's tests are all run at 1920x1080. (We have more data coming at 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, too, so expect a follow-up story or stories to present our findings there.) To best represent the experience we'd want to have, all benchmarks were run with the highest graphics settings possible.

Test Systems

To avoid variance from GPU Boost as our GeForce GTX graphics cards heat up, we use multiple runs from each benchmark in quick succession. We select the median value from the last recordings.

Test System & Configuration

Hardware

Intel LGA 1151 (Z370) @ 2666/2400AMD Socket AM4 @ 2667 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270) @ 2400AMD Socket SP3 (TR4) (In Game Mode) @ 2667 Intel LGA 2066 @ 2666 Common To AllGigabyte GeForce GTX 1060 G1 Gaming 6G 1TB 1500W (Creators Update Version 1703)

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Ashes Of The Singularity: Escalation

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

Ashes of the Singularity was one of the first titles to receive a Ryzen-optimized patch. And it appears that host processing is always going to be your bottleneck if you're using a GeForce GTX 1080 at 1920x1080. As we can see, the 18-core/36-thread Core i9-7980XE takes a healthy lead over the rest of the field, while the 10C/20T Core i9-7900X captures second place.

This benchmark scales well with increased core counts, highlighting some of the generational transitions in Intel's line-up. The 6-core/12-thread Core i7-8700K illustrates a big jump over Intel's previous-gen 4-core/8-thread Core i7-7700K, which basically ties the Core i5-8600K.

The Core i3-7350K (and every CPU below it in our chart) struggles mightily during the benchmark.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

Stepping down a notch to the GeForce GTX 1070 finds Intel's Core i9-7980XE and Core i9-7900X providing nearly identical performance, while the rest of the field scales down as we'd expect.

Really, the Core i7-7700K and most processors under it offer nearly the same performance as they did paired up to a GeForce GTX 1080. We do measure a 2.3 FPS delta between the i5-8600K with both graphics cards, but that appears to be an exception. Such small variances hardly make it worth stepping up to the GeForce GTX 1080 in this title at this resolution.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

The limitations of a GeForce GTX 1060 become clear, even in this CPU-bound test, though Intel's Core i9-7980XE still maintains a healthy lead over the rest of the field.

At this point, a graphics bottleneck is emerging, pushing the GTX 1060 to its limit. As a result, the Core i9-7900X and Core i7-8700K fall a few positions. It's possible that a lighter workload isn't pushing the execution cores hard enough for them to maintain their highest Turbo Boost bins. If true, the uncore frequency drops as well, slowing the cache and ring bus frequencies, reducing performance throughout. We'll see this phenomenon in other titles, too.

Compared to our GeForce GTX 1080 results, we see similar performance from every CPU beneath the Core i5-8600K, showing that lower-end processors are still the bottleneck.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI Graphics

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

Intel's Core i9-7900X leads this benchmark with an impressive 106.6 FPS. The remainder of the results are uneventful, generally following trends we've observed through past CPU reviews. The Core i7-7700K averages 102.8 FPS, and the nearest mainstream Ryzen competitor achieves 80.1 FPS.

We tested the Threadripper 1950X in Game Mode simply because there wasn't enough room in our charts for the many combinations that AMD enables. Head over to our Threadripper 1950X Game Mode, Benchmarked article if you're interested in the impact of the various modes on Threadripper's performance. Just be aware that the processor behaves differently in many games, depending on the settings you choose.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

Stepping down to the GeForce GTX 1070 exposes a graphics bottleneck with some of our faster CPUs. Intel's Core i9 models push the limits at around 94 FPS, landing within the range we'd expect for a graphics-bound situation. The rest of the field falls into line based on host processing power, though some CPUs fare worse than others.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

A more definite GPU limitation irons out some of the variance between CPUs. Worthwhile scaling is no longer observable. Case in point: There is only a 6.4% delta between the Ryzen 5 1600X and Threadripper 1950X, showing how a midrange graphics card can neutralize the benefit of a high-end processor if you aren't careful to maintain balance.

Fortunately, this also means you can snag an affordable Ryzen 3 or Core i3 and enjoy almost the same performance as you would with a much more expensive model.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Dawn Of War III

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

Dawn of War III scales well with increased execution resources. As we can see from the fastest CPUs, though, it also favors high clock rates.

Intel's Core i7-8700K reaches up to 113.6 FPS. However, its 1.5 FPS advantage over the Core i7-7700K isn't very impressive considering the Core i7-8700K boasts 50% more Hyper-Threaded cores.

Meanwhile, the $1000 Core i9-7900X doesn't offer as much performance as a $175 Core i3-8350K. This is why we don't recommend HEDT processors for purpose-built gaming rigs.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

The same general scaling trends persist with the GeForce GTX 1070, albeit at a lower performance level. Intel's Core i3-8350K continues behaving like older Core i5 CPUs, while the Core i5-8600K really hits a price/performance sweet spot with this pairing.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

Again, some of the highest-end processors drop a few places because they aren't utilized fully. There's only a 3.3 FPS (4%) delta between the Core i9-7980XE and the first-place finisher...but that chart-topper is a Core i5!

Again: Striking the right balance is important. Not only is it a waste to buy too much CPU if you don't need the processing power for other workloads, but you can even handicap it with a graphics card incapable of keeping it busy.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry Primal

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

Far Cry Primal's Dunia Engine 2 responds well to high clock rates and IPC throughput. However, it also benefits when we turn off simultaneous multi-threading. As a result, you'll notice that the Core i5s are very competitive.

An increasing number of games are being tuned for quad-core CPUs, and this one is no exception. We think it'll take some time before chips with more cores start distinguishing themselves, though Coffee Lake fares well enough.

Although AMD doesn't do as well in our average measurements, its Ryzen 5 1600X and Ryzen 7 1800X processors demonstrate the least amount of frame-time variance. Rest assured that they offer a smooth gaming experience.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

We observe much less variance between CPUs as we step down to a less powerful GeForce GTX 1070. The 6-core/12-thread Ryzen 5 1600X continues outmaneuvering the 8-core/16-thread Ryzen 7 1800X, while the Threadripper 1950X inexplicably jumps higher in the rankings.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

We enter graphics-bound territory with the GeForce GTX 1060, which mixes up the finishing order. Notably, even though they don't lead when it comes to average frame rate, Intel's Core i7-8700K and i5-8600K provide the smoothest performance with the least frame-time variance. The Pentium models also respond well to this pairing.

AMD's Threadripper 1950X is the only processor that lands below our expectations. Then again, we've proven that Game Mode isn't the best option for this title. A bit of tuning might rectify the issue.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Grand Theft Auto V

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates. It may seem odd that the Core i5-8600K beats Intel's Core i7-8700K, but we've observed this tendency on other occasions.

Did you notice that Core i3-8350K out there in front of the quad-core Core i5-7600K? Clearly, Coffee Lake propels the Core i3 family to new performance heights.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

The finishing order remains intact as we test with Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1070, though average frame rates fall a bit. Still, many of the slower models land within 1 FPS of what we saw from the GTX 1080, suggesting that we're not seeing a graphics-bound workload. Host processing appears to be the limiting factor.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

Plain and simple: Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1060 restricts performance at this point.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Hitman

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

We began our testing with the Pentium CPUs and worked our way up, benchmarking all nine games for each processor before moving on to the next. So, you can imagine how thrilled we were when we discovered that IO Interactive implemented a 90 FPS frame cap at some point through a patch. Soldiering on anyway, we observed little scaling above the Core i9-7900X.

Intel's Pentium processors average a solid 60+ FPS, though we could see quite a bit of hitching during the test sequence. The Ryzen 3 1300X and the Core i3-7350K fare better, but you want a Ryzen 5 or a Kaby Lake-based Core i5, at the least, for smooth performance in this title.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

The frame cap continues to be a killjoy, but at least a GeForce GTX 1070 and a reasonably-priced Core i5-8600K push Hitman's limits at 1920x1080. There is a bit of unevenness to report from the Ryzen 3 1300X and Pentium models, which manifests in our frame-time variance chart.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

We finally duck under the frame cap, but only because Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1060 isn't fast enough.

There's only a 3% delta between the quad-core Core i3-8350K and first-place finisher. This is definitely a graphics-bound workload that only breaks apart a bit when we drop to the lowest-end CPUs.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

Middle-earth: Shadow of War doesn't scale as dramatically as some of our other benchmarks, and it certainly isn't as sensitive to IPC throughput and frequency as Shadow of Mordor. CPU reviews tend to focus on games that scale well with certain host processing specifications, such as core count, clock rate, cache size, or memory bandwidth. But some games just can't get enough graphics performance.

This title exhibits a 12.6 FPS (~16%) gap between the fastest and slowest processors in our pool, but every system surpasses the 70 FPS mark easily. There is a difference in smoothness between the Pentium and Ryzen 3 1300X processors, but it isn't extreme.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

Naturally, a GeForce GTX 1070 is even more tied up, tightening the delta from top to bottom to just 3.3 FPS.

The Pentium processors still struggle a bit with hitching.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

A GeForce GTX 1060 puts all of these CPUs on an even footing. Subjectively, there is no difference between the processors, even though our data suggests that the Core i7-8700K lags behind.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Project CARS 2

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading, and it seems to scale well with increased host-processing resources. After all, we see a 41 FPS delta between the fastest and slowest processors in our test pool. The Core i5-8600K leads, and it is followed closely by Intel's Core i7-7700K.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

The Core i3-8350K shows that it's a surprisingly capable quad-core CPU, besting AMD's entire line-up. With that said, the Ryzen 5 1600X specifically offers most of what higher-end models can do, but at a much lower price.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

The GeForce GTX 1060 limits performance at 1920x1080. AMD's Ryzen 3 1300X is the only processor to exhibit a marked amount of hitching during our recording.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds (PUBG)

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds can be a frustrating title to benchmark. Its constant cadence of updates seems to introduce more problems than are solved, and we've seen visible hitching from even the fastest CPUs and GPUs.

Aside from the Pentiums, scaling in PUBG is fairly meager. AMD's Ryzen 3 1300X suffers the most jarring stuttering during playback of our recorded game.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

Stepping down to a GeForce GTX 1070 confirms that we're decidedly graphics-bound. Not that this game is particularly detailed; it may just be poorly optimized. Either way, there's no real meaningful conclusion we can draw from such an outcome.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

Our final test leaves little to explain: There are no meaningful differences between CPUs when you're constrained by a GeForce GTX 1060.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

The Best Combinations of CPU and GPU at 1080p

Boiling our testing down into one general recommendation is almost impossible, especially given the pricing of graphics cards right now. But we can identify some of the more obvious trends.

Fast-paced first-person shooters tend to prefer high clock rates and fast graphics cards. Nimble CPUs like the Intel Core i5 and i7, and AMD's Ryzen 5 and 7, fare best in our performance measurements. Some titles are easily graphics-bound, though that could be due to poor optimizations or minimal effort to parallelize the game engine. PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds is the perfect example. It doesn't respond at all to faster processors. It's far better to buy a higher-end graphics card if that game is your main squeeze.

Real-time strategy titles seem to respond more favorably to CPUs with lots of cores; so do many turn-based games. Of course, that genre isn't as sensitive to graphics performance because it doesn't require quick response times. But a fluid experience in RTS games is a must. Often, host processing is the bottleneck, so dialing back your GPU investment and buying a better CPU yields the best performance possible.

Charting Out The Trends: The Best Pairings

We typically plot our test results on a scatter chart with price and performance on two axes, but we aren't even going to take a stab at graphics pricing during these tumultuous times. Instead, we're providing a geometric mean of the 99th percentile frame times, representing smoothness, converted into an FPS measurement for each class of graphics card. Each game factors into this calculation except for the artificially hamstrung Hitman.

Balance is the goal here. Intel's Core i7-8700K is the first chip we think of when it comes to top-of-the-line for gaming PCs. But it doesn't always lead in our benchmarks. It would likely fare better with more heavily threaded titles tested. Otherwise, the Core i5-8600K seems to be a better value pairing for Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1080.

The GeForce GTX 1070 pairs well with either a Core i5-8600K or Ryzen 7 1800X, though the latter notably offers additional performance in other enthusiast-oriented desktop apps. We've also found that the Ryzen 7 1800X is a great chip for game streaming, so give it serious consideration for more taxing workloads. If you're looking to go Intel, aren't interested in overclocking, and want to save a few dollars, the Core i5-8400 complements a GeForce GTX 1070 well, too.

On the value scale, Core i3-8350K and Ryzen 5 1600X both pair well with a GeForce GTX 1060. If you're willing to do a bit of overclocking, though, a Ryzen 5 1600 looks even better.

Speaking of overclocking, most of the CPUs we tested can operate at even higher frequencies. AMD has a much friendlier policy here; all of its chips are unlocked. Meanwhile, Intel charges a premium for its unlocked K-series SKUs. If you want to know more about available headroom, we have plenty of test results with every processor overclocked in their individual reviews, so head to those for an idea of potential gains.

Of course, our findings would be all the more interesting if we could run out and build a well-balanced machine with affordable hardware. Here's hoping the availability of graphics cards improves sometime soon!

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Do The Meltdown and Spectre Patches Affect PC Gaming Performance? 10 CPUs Tested

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 14:00:01 +0000

Gaming With Meltdown And Spectre

Imagine that nearly every PC, server, and mobile phone on the planet was suddenly vulnerable to data theft at the hands of nefarious actors. Then, imagine the exploit responsible for this vulnerability couldn't be detected by antivirus software because it merely took advantage of normal CPU operations.

Although this sounds like a bad movie script, it unfortunately became a known truth during the first few days of 2018.

On January 2nd, The Register exposed Intel's then-secret Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities through investigative journalism. But unbeknown to most of the world, Google’s Project Zero researchers, along with two other independent teams, discovered the vulnerabilities 200 days earlier. As a courtesy, the researchers gave Intel, AMD, IBM, Qualcomm, and ARM a grace period to develop mitigations before making their findings public. Those companies, along with developers contributing to Windows and Linux, worked together behind a veil of secrecy for months.

Perhaps understandably, the initial response to The Register's report was chaotic because it preempted that planned group disclosure. What happened after, though, appeared to be a comedy of errors, especially given the amount of time affected companies had to prepare.

Then again, the firms were trying to plug holes that were baked into hardware and software for more than a decade. In fact, nearly every Intel processor since 1995 was found to be vulnerable, so fixing the issues without breaking compatibility proved to be a mind-boggling challenge.

The patches supposedly have performance implications. So now that the industry is a month into cleaning up its mess, we're ready to start assessing the damage. First up: game performance.

The Land Of Patch Confusion

There are two general vulnerabilities in play here, and they're broken up into three categories. Variants 1 and 2 are what we've come to know as Spectre, while Variant 3 is Meltdown. Intel, ARM, and Qualcomm are susceptible to all three, while AMD is only affected by Spectre.

As we can see, Variant 1 and 3 can be patched in the operating system, while the most nefarious bug, Variant 2, requires both motherboard firmware/microcode and operating system patches.

The initial industry scramble resulted in a flurry of immature and buggy updates. Because the patches weren't distributed as drivers, processor vendors couldn't push them out directly. Instead, they filtered out through Microsoft, Linux-based operating systems, OEMs, and motherboard manufacturers. A rapid sequence of patches, re-patches, and un-patches confused enthusiasts in the know. Everyone else had to have been completely lost.

This is how bad it got: Intel released a motherboard firmware/CPU microcode patch that could cause reboots, system instability, and potential data loss/corruption. Its partners pulled the update. Microsoft published a patch of its own for AMD systems that left some of them unbootable. It, too, had to reverse course, blaming improper documentation from AMD. A fix was released several weeks later.

For now, Intel doesn't have an operating system or microcode patch for Spectre Variant 2. AMD has an OS patch for it, but the company does not have a microcode update to offer. And because microcode patches will have the biggest impact on system performance, today's benchmark results are subject to change.

Intel says it will provide patches for CPUs dating back five years and then move on to older models. Many folks speculate that we may never see patches for those legacy products, though. Both Intel and AMD claim they will have silicon-based mitigations in their next-gen processors. Of course, it remains to be seen how each company works around their security holes without compromising performance.

For now, one thing is for sure: today's patches, particularly those for Spectre Variant 2, affect performance in some workloads. Older CPUs are said to be hit the worst. Microsoft predicts that "some" users with Windows 10 on pre-Broadwell architectures will suffer noticeable slow-downs, while "most" users on Windows 7 and 8.1 on comparable systems will notice a decrease in performance.

Measuring the impact hasn’t been an easy task in our labs. The changing nature of these patches complicates matters: we’ve begun testing several times only to have a patch altered or removed. We’re diligently working on the next round of application benchmarks, and are expanding our scope to include older CPUs. For now, let's focus on gaming with a good selection of recent Ryzen, Kaby Lake-, and Coffee Lake-based processors.

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

Exploiting The Unexploitable

Meltdown and Spectre are vulnerabilities exploited through side-channel attacks, which are incredibly difficult to block. These occur when an attacker observes the traits of a computer, be it the timing of certain operations or even noise and light patterns, and uses that information to compromise security.

It all starts with data, of course. A CPU loads information from main memory into its registers by requesting the contents of a virtual address, which is in turn mapped to a physical address. While fulfilling this request, the CPU verifies the address' permission bits, indicating whether the process has permission to access the memory address, or if only the kernel can access it. The system approves or denies access accordingly. The industry assumed this technique securely bifurcated memory into protected regions, so operating systems automatically map the entire kernel into the user space memory map's virtual address space. That means the CPU can attempt to access all of the virtual addresses if needed, but it also exposes the entire virtual address map to the user space.

The problem has to do with speculative execution, which is part of out-of-order processing. Pipelined CPU cores process instructions in stages, such as instruction fetch, instruction decode, execute, memory access, and register write-back. Today’s processors break each of these fundamental stages down further, sometimes into 20 or more stages. This helps facilitate higher clock rates.

CPUs employ multiple pipelines to allow for parallelized instruction processing. That's why, in the image below, we see four different colors passing simultaneously through the four stages. Instruction branches can cause the pipeline to switch to another instruction sequence, creating a stall. That means the pipeline doesn’t process data for several clock cycles while it waits for inputs from memory.

To help avoid this, when the processor encounters a branch, its prediction unit tries to guess which instruction sequence the processor will need next. But it makes that determination before processing the instruction. The processor then fetches the predicted branch's instruction and speculatively executes it. This avoids the latency normally incurred if the pipeline stalls (due to the branch), and then fetching the next instruction from memory.

Depending on the address location (L1, L2, L3, RAM), fetching data from memory requires 10s to 100s of nanoseconds. That's slow compared to the sub-nanosecond latency of processor cycles, so having the instruction already in-flight speeds operation tremendously. Most operations are committed because branch predictors often have a 90%+ success rate. The processor simply discards the instruction and flushes its pipeline if the instruction isn't needed (misprediction).

Google's researchers found a sliver of opportunity in how the system handles cached memory access during speculative executions. Normal security checks that keep the user space and kernel memory separate don't happen fast enough during speculative executions that access cached memory. As a result, the processor can momentarily speculatively fetch and execute data from cached memory that it shouldn't be able to access. The system eventually does deny access and the data is discarded, but again, because this doesn't happen fast enough, a window of opportunity for an exploit is opened. Meltdown exploits the branch predictor to run code against the cache, all the while timing this process. That allows it to determine what data is held in the memory, as seen in the short video below.

In the case of Meltdown, an attacker can read passwords, encryption keys, or other data from protected memory. That data could also be used to assume control of the system, rendering all other forms of protection useless. The biggest concern for data centers is that the exploit also allows an application resident in one virtual machine to access the memory of another virtual machine. This means an attacker could rent an instance on a public cloud and collect information from other VMs on the same server.

Attackers can exploit this vulnerability with JavaScript, so you could expose your system simply by visiting a nefarious web site. Browser developers have updated their products to reduce timing granularity. But attackers can also just use normal code delivered via malware or other avenues to execute an attack.

For now, the Meltdown operating system patch involves adding another layer of security checks during memory address accesses. That hampers the latency of system calls, thus slowing performance when applications issue kernel calls. Applications that tend to remain in the user space are less impacted. Intel's post-Broadwell processors have a PCID (Post-Context Identifiers) feature that speeds the process, so they don't experience as much of a slowdown as older models.

The Spectre exploit is much more nefarious because it can exploit a wider range of the speculative execution engine's capabilities to access kernel memory or data from other applications. Some researchers claim that fixing this exploit fully could require a fundamental re-tooling of all processor architectures, so it's possible we'll live with some form of this vulnerability for the foreseeable future. Fortunately, the exploit is extremely hard to pull off, requiring an elevated level of knowledge of the target processor and application. Intel and others have come up with patches for the current Spectre variants, but it is possible that vendors will play whack-a-mole as new Spectre derivatives arrive in the future.

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

Test Setup

Our methodology for this story is fairly simple in practice. First, we performed a round of benchmarks on our Windows 10-based systems. Then, we applied the relevant patch and repeated the tests. Although the Variant 2 operating system patch we're using was deactivated via Windows, it should represent worst-case performance for now. We did not use a BIOS with Spectre mitigations because none are currently available (they were pulled). We'll follow up with more comparative testing as firmware updates arrive.

We tested each processor at its stock settings, including representatives from the Core i3, Ryzen 3, Core i5, Ryzen 5, Core i7, Ryzen 7, and Pentium line-ups. Naturally, overclocked systems will fare better. And as always, we disable Enhanced Multi-Core Turbo on our test systems.

In order to avoid variance from GPU Boost as our GeForce GTX 1080 heats up, we use multiple runs from each benchmark in quick succession. We select the median value from the last recordings, so, in many cases, the patched/unpatched results could land higher or lower than each other due to the tight variances you'll see today.

Test System & Configuration

Hardware

Intel LGA 1151 (Z370) @ 2666AMD Socket AM4 @ 2667 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270) @ 2666 All 1TB 1500WWindows 10 Creators Update Version 1703, pre- and post-patch

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

Comparison CPUs

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

AMD Ryzen 5 1600X

AMD Ryzen 3 1300X

VRMark & 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to represent real-world game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

Futuremark's VRMark test lets you gauge your system's suitability for use with the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, even if you don't currently own an HMD. The Orange Room test is based on the suggested system requirements for current-generation HTC Vive and Oculus Rift HMDs. Futuremark defines a passing score as anything above 109 FPS.

Futuremark specifies a 3% maximum variance between runs if we adhere to normal testing best practices, such as ensuring similar configurations and drivers between systems, allowing the PC to enter an idle state, and conducting tests with the same environmental factors. Of course, there are sub-tests in suites like PCMark 10 that can fall outside the 3% window, at which point we rely upon averages. We didn't encounter those issue with these gaming-focused tests, though.

VRMark reflects a negligible impact from the patches across our entire field of CPUs. At times, the patched operating systems are slightly faster, but these values land within the 3% margin of error. That means those higher results are merely a byproduct of normal run-to-run variability.

The DX11 and DX12 CPU benchmarks respond to core counts and increased parallelism. Frankly, these tests don't show us much of interest. There is some jockeying between patched and unpatched configurations, but the results are uneventful overall.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation scales nicely with the addition of computational horsepower, so graphics aren't limiting us.

We observe minor variations between the patched and unpatched systems. For instance, a patched Core i7-8700K outpaces the vulnerable configuration. But a 1.6% delta is still within our expectations of normal run-to-run variance. We also don't record any extreme changes to the frame time or frame time variance metrics.

Notice that we split our results into two classes due to the sheer number of tests we ran. Be sure to scroll across the album for our comparison of Core i3, Ryzen 3, and Pentium processors.

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, & Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

The Civilization VI AI test measures CPU performance in a turn-based strategy game, and tends to favor a mixture of physical cores, clock rate, and IPC throughput.

Our results are a mixed bag; half of the processors are slower after the patch, but five turn out to be faster. Our largest variance is 0.15 seconds, though, so its hard to ascribe any significance to the outcome.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

The results of our Civilization VI graphics test aren't any more surprising than what we saw in Ashes of the Singularity. There's little to no observable impact from the patches, and both configurations take turns in the lead. Ryzen 7 1800X encounters the most variance, and that's a mere .8 FPS on average (less than 1%). Even the 99th percentile metrics bounce back and forth between the patched and unpatched configurations.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Dawn of War doesn't seem to be hampered by the patches either, although we do see our first result exceeding a 1 FPS delta. The patched Ryzen 7 1800X falls behind by 1.1 FPS, yielding a mere 1.2% difference. Again, it's a relatively mundane outcome.

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

Far Cry Primal, Grand Theft Auto V & Hitman

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal's Dunia Engine 2 responds well to high clock rates and IPC throughput. However, it also seems to prefer when we turn off simultaneous multi-threading, so you'll notice the Core i5 processors are very competitive.

We do see a bit more frame time variance between certain models, but the lead again shuffles back and forth between patched and unpatched configurations. That means we can chalk these differences up to expected variances.

Typically, our reviews include similarly-priced models, so the floors and ceilings aren't so pronounced. Today's exploration gives us a good opportunity to see how different CPU classes scale. For instance, the average frame rate delta between Intel's Pentium G4560 and Core i7-7700K is 27 FPS.

Grand Theft Auto V

The Grand Theft Auto V benchmark again reveals little variance between configurations, and a negligible impact on frame times.

We do spot several notable outliers from Intel's Core i3-8350K, but those occur whether the CPU is patched or not. We also record a 42 FPS 99th percentile measurement with the patched Core i3-7350K compared to the unpatched configuration's 47 FPS. That's one of the largest deltas reported in today's data.

Hitman (2016)

We're graphics-bound in our Hitman test, so there is little to no variation between the Core i7 and i5 processors.

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

Shadow of War, Project CARS 2 & PUBG

Middle-earth: Shadow of War

We swapped out the aging Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor for Shadow of War during this round of tests. We like that its built-in benchmark is very consistent.

Shadow of War isn't as sensitive to clock rate and IPC throughput as its predecessor. We don't see much variance between the Core i5 and i7 models, which are largely graphics-bound. There is, however, more distance between the lower-end models. But there is only a 13.2 FPS delta between the Core i7-8600K and Pentium G4620.

Project CARS 2

We're also swapping out Project CARS for Project CARS 2.

There's a bit more scaling to observe in this title, with the slowest processor lagging the leader by 41 FPS. Regardless, though, there isn't any significant variance attributable to security patches (aside from a 1.7 FPS delta between the Core i3-8350K results).

PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG)

This is also our first outing with PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds.

Although we're using a saved game sequence to ensure repeatability, we recently learned that PUBG recordings can lag in-game multiplayer performance by ~4-8 FPS. This is an odd tendency because recorded game sequences usually run faster than actual multiplayer matches. Nevertheless, we recorded a few sessions with our tool and then compared them to in-game results using the same path. Sure enough, the FPS line charts didn't overlap, even though the results indicate similar peaks and valleys. That means the recording is an accurate representation of trends, albeit with slower frame rates.

That doesn't mean the results are any more interesting than they have been, though. The game engine simply doesn't scale well; we only recorded a 5.9 FPS delta between the fastest and slowest processors in our test pool. We probably could amplify this difference by reducing graphics quality. However, we prefer setting the eye candy to maximum for a more enjoyable experience, rather than deliberately creating a synthetic metric.

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

Game On...For Now

This first round of Meltdown and Spectre patch testing proved fairly uneventful. There really wasn't much to report across our suite of game benchmarks. But that's partly because the status of patches keeps changing. We originally planned to test with both the operating system and microcode updates for Spectre Variant 2, which are expected to impose a significant performance overhead.

Unfortunately, Intel and its partners pulled the microcode patch during our testing, and AMD still doesn't have a fix of its own. We've been told that Intel's updated update is undergoing rigorous validation, but we don't have a time frame for its release. The same goes for AMD's Variant 2 microcode. Of course, we'll add test results with the new patches once they are available.

For newer processors, it looks like the operating system patch won't affect gaming workloads much, if at all. Most games are confined to the user space and don't make frequent kernel calls, so it's possible that the impact on older CPUs could be minor as well (game testing on those is in-progress).

The current patch does have an impact on storage performance, at least when it's measured with synthetic benchmarks. A laggy hard drive would obviously affect level loading times and the storage subsystem's ability to feed the game engine, possibly resulting in choppy scene transitions. We scrutinized our load times and cut scenes closely, and while entry-level CPUs did take longer and were less smooth, it's hard to chalk that up to a security patch because slower processors are, well, slower. We didn't notice any dramatic changes in performance consistency or frame time variance, so any minor impact would likely be limited to storage-imposed symptoms, at least with the patches as they sit currently.

Most of the vulnerability-oriented storage testing we've seen is happening at high queue depths, or using pure read or write workloads that aren't the best indicator of operating system performance. Most real-world accesses occur at lower queue depths, and radical changes in SSD performance, either for better or worse, don't correspond linearly to application performance.

The Spectre Variant 2 patches still loom large for Intel and AMD. Hopefully, both companies can deliver solid updates with minimal impact. We've heard that some applications can be optimized to minimize overhead. And Intel has mentioned that existing patches will mature into more efficient implementations.

For now we remain vulnerable to Spectre Variant 2, and proof-of-concept code is already popping up in the wild, unfortunately. That leaves us exposed while we wait on Intel and AMD, not to mention the rest of the industry, to correctly patch what could be the greatest vulnerability of our time. At least we can enjoy some gaming while we wait.

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

Intel Core i3-8100 CPU Review

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:00:00 +0000

Meet Intel's Core i3-8100

Intel's Coffee Lake architecture represents the company's biggest generational improvement in more than a decade. Specifically, though, its Core i3 models benefit most. In the past, Core i3 chips wielded two Hyper-Threaded cores. But Coffee Lake-based i3s sport four physical cores. On paper, that makes them roughly equivalent to Kaby Lake-based Core i5s at lower prices.

The improvement was badly needed. AMD's Ryzen 3 1300X and 1200 offered unlocked ratio multipliers and twice as many cores as previous-gen Core i3s, earning our unabashed praise. Intel tries leveling the playing field with Coffee Lake. In response, AMD slashed prices on its Ryzen 5 and 7 CPUs.

Part of our list of best CPUs for desktop applications at press time, the Core i3-8100 competes at a price point where AMD might not be able to get much more aggressive. All Ryzen processors utilize the same eight-core die, so there is a fixed manufacturing cost, even for the four-core Ryzen 3 models.

Although Intel only sells two Coffee Lake-based Cores i3s for now, there's a $60 chasm between the Core i3-8100 and unlocked Core i3-8350K. And that K-series chip isn't a typical Core i3. It doesn't come with a bundled cooler, it requires a pricey Z-series motherboard for overclocking, and it only costs a few dollars less than the six-core Core i5-8400. Naturally, we recommend stepping up to the higher-performance CPU.

Core i3-8100, on the other hand, fits neatly into the familiar mainstream pricing structure and is a good complement for the B-series motherboards due to arrive early this year. Selling for $121 online, it's Intel's only real competition against Ryzen 3 1300X and 1200.

The Core i3-8100

Intel's entire Coffee Lake line-up operates at lower base frequencies than its Kaby Lake chips due to the prevalence of extra cores. For the Core i7/i5 families, Intel offsets those conservative clock rates with higher Turbo Boost bins. But Core i3-8100 doesn't benefit from Turbo Boost. That means you get a static frequency, regardless of how many cores are active. So, the -8100's 3.6 GHz ceiling could yield lower performance in lightly-threaded workloads compared to the 3.9 GHz Core i3-7100.

Of course, four physical cores should also translate to a big speed-up in heavily-threaded tasks favoring Core i3-8100. Extra cores naturally use more power, so Core i3-8100 carries a 65W TDP versus Core i3-7100's 51W rating.

The i3's cores come with 1.5MB of cache each, adding up to 6MB of L3 across the die. Core i3-8350K boasts 2MB of L3 cache per core, for a total of 8MB. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 3 models sport 8MB of L3 cache as well. As we've seen, though, in real-world applications, cache latency and throughput can drag down the advantage of higher capacity. Our benchmarks will sort out the winners.

Coffee Lake-based Core i3s support the same DDR4-2400 transfer rate as Kaby Lake models, while Core i5s and i7s now accommodate up to DDR4-2666. The Core i3-8100 includes UHD Graphics 630 on-die, which is essentially the same as Kaby Lake's integrated graphics engine. This gives Intel an advantage over AMD's Ryzen processors if you aren't planning on using a discrete GPU.

Intel lists the Core i3-8100 at $117, which matches the Kaby Lake-based Core i3-7100. Coffee Lake pricing has improved alongside availability, and we're now seeing this chip online for ~$121. It naturally does battle, then, with AMD's $130 Ryzen 3 1300X and $110 Ryzen 3 1200. Let's see how they stack up.

MORE: Best Cheap CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Test Notes

MSI motherboards, like many others, feature a default Enhanced Turbo setting that allows the processor to run at its maximum Turbo Boost bin across all cores at all times. For all practical purposes, this is the same as overclocking. The setting only applies to K-series processors, though, so it isn't a factor in our Core i3-8100 testing.

We paired our sample with a Z370-based motherboard, which does support faster memory. Sticking with Intel's official specification, we used DDR4-2666 modules at 2400 MT/s to represent the data rates you'll have access to once B- and H-series motherboards surface.

MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC

MSI continues its Z-series Gaming Pro motherboards, giving the latest implementation similar features as previous models. The exact board details and specifications can be found on the manufacturer's website.

Comparison Processors

AMD Ryzen 3 1200

AMD Ryzen 3 1300X

Intel Core i3-7100

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Intel LGA 1151 (Z370)Intel Core i3-8100, i3-8350K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2400, 2666, 2933, and 3200AMD Socket AM4 AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1400, Ryzen 3 1300X, Ryzen 3 1200MSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i3-7350K, i3-7100, i5-7400 MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703Corsair H115i

Test System & Configuration

Hardware

Intel LGA 1151 (Z370)Intel Core i3-8100, i3-8350K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2400, 2666, 2933, and 3200AMD Socket AM4 AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1400, Ryzen 3 1300X, Ryzen 3 1200MSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i3-7350K, i3-7100, i5-7400 MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703Corsair H115i

MORE: Best Cheap CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark & 3DMark

Intel architectures tend to perform best in the VRMark tests, and that trend continues with Core i3-8100. The pricier -8350K leverages its higher clock rate to beat Intel's Core i3-8100. Meanwhile, it's noteworthy that the Core i3-7100 lands at the bottom of our chart. This is a trend we'll see continue through several of our tests.

Core i3-8100 competes readily against AMD's Ryzen 3 1300X and 1200 during the 3DMark physics and CPU tests. The Ryzen 5 1500X and 1400 enjoy a significant advantage from their eight threads. But then again, they're also more expensive.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity is a heavily-threaded game that performs best on CPUs with lots of cores. Even still, Core i3-8100 scores impressively well compared to its quad-threaded competitors. It even outstrips the 4C/8T Ryzen 5 1400 at stock settings.

Ryzen 3 1200 features a 3.1 GHz base and 3.4 GHz boost frequency, which hampers performance during this CPU-intensive benchmark. Even the dual-core Core i3-7350K is allowed to squeak past. Then again, an overclocked Core i3-8350K surprisingly leads the six-core Core i5-8400, so high clock rates clearly pay off, too.

MORE: Best Cheap CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI AI Test

The Civilization VI AI test measures CPU performance in a turn-based strategy game. An overclocked Core i3-8350K establishes a compelling lead over its locked Coffee Lake counterparts, while the Core i5-8400's Turbo Boost frequencies provide an edge over the -8100's 3.6 GHz ceiling.

AMD's Ryzen 3 processors are also competitive. The tuned Ryzen 3 1300X, an Editor's Choice award-winner, leads the Core i3-8100. Meanwhile, the overclocked Ryzen 5 models don't fare as well. Then again, those more expensive models feature simultaneous multi-threading, which this test historically punishes.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Even with two extra cores, there are situations where the -8100's locked multiplier is a liability. Both overclocked Ryzen 3 models outperform the Core i3-8100 during this benchmark, while the -8100 fends off those same processors at stock settings by a similar margin.

There's a huge 24.2 FPS delta between the Ryzen 3 1200's stock 3.1 GHz base frequency and overclocked 3.9 GHz configuration. Overclocking the 1200's memory to 3200 MT/s helps quite a bit.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Warhammer 40,000: DoW III's benchmark scales well with execution resources, but aggressive clock rates also provide a big benefit.

The overclocked Core i3-8350K continues to impress, though the fact it requires an overclocking-friendly heat sink and Z370 motherboard hurts the value calculation compared to less expensive Core i3 and Ryzen 3 models.

Intel's Core i3-8100 takes a comfortable lead over the Ryzen 3 models, even after we overclock them. The -8100 also beats both stock Ryzen 5 CPUs, though AMD's 1500X jumps ahead once we overclock it.

MORE: Best Cheap CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Grand Theft Auto V

Overclocking has a big impact on the -8350K's performance, allowing it to jump ahead of our test pool.

The Core i3-8100 averages an impressive 83.3 FPS, which is way ahead of the Core i3-7100's 58.4 FPS. That ~43% generational leap is typically unheard of. But the -8100 still trails Intel's Core i3-8350K at stock settings, which has a much higher base frequency. The Ryzen processors lag Intel's Coffee Lake-based models, even after tuning.

Hitman (2016)

The Core i3-8350K redefines what we expect from a Core i3. Given its higher overall cost, though, this is really more like a Core i5.

Core i3-8100 yields surprisingly good performance in Hitman, even if it isn't as formidable as the K-series model. The average FPS line chart, which only includes price-equivalent CPUs, highlights two performance tiers: the Kaby Lake and Ryzen processors offer significantly less performance than the Coffee Lake-based chips.

Intel's Core i3-7100 encounters several frame time outliers during the benchmark, while the -8100's additional cores provide a smoother experience.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

This title is about as single-threaded as it gets, so clock rates and IPC throughput affect frame rates most.

We expected the Core i3-7100's higher clock rate to provide an advantage over the Core i3-8100 in this benchmark, similar to how a stock -7350K beats the -8350K. Surprisingly, the -8100 leads, albeit by a slim margin, while the Ryzen models coalesce at the bottom of the chart. But it's noteworthy that even the slowest processor averages 124.7 FPS.

MORE: Best Cheap CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Project CARS

Core i5-8400 demonstrates the benefit of six cores in a threaded game, leading Intel's Core i3-8100 by a significant margin. Still, the Core i3-8100 wields its four cores to great effect, beating the price-comparable Ryzen models by ~13 FPS and sliding past the pricier Ryzen 5s, even after we overclock them.

Again, the Core i3-7100 tumbles down the chart, falling 24 FPS behind its Coffee Lake-based successor. That's a ~39% generational speed-up in this title.

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal's Dunia Engine 2 responds well to high clock rates and IPC throughput. However, it also seems to run better with simultaneous multi-threading disabled. That plays well to the Core i5/i3 and Ryzen 3 models, which don't feature SMT support.

As expected, Core i3-8100 leaps over its previous-generation counterpart, but lags the Core i3-8350K.

Even after we lock frequencies to the same 3.9 GHz, our overclocked Ryzen 5 1400 trails the 4C/8T Ryzen 5 1500X. The tuned 1400 wasn't stable with its memory set to 3200 MT/s. Instead, we could only achieve 2933 MT/s, which does affect gaming performance. We suspect the Ryzen 5 1400's 8MB of L3 cache, which is half of what the 1500X includes, has an impact on some workloads.

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Rise of the Tomb Raider
is a recurrent thorn in AMD's side. Recent patches fixed the most glaring issues, but Intel processors still handily outperform their Ryzen competition. The Core i3-7100 again shows how significantly the entry-level Kaby Lake-based CPUs fall behind today's Coffee Lake models.

MORE: Best Cheap CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Adobe Creative Cloud

The Core i3-8100 performs well through our Adobe suite, taking fourth place overall. It beats the Ryzen processors in every test except for the After Effects sub-test, where AMD's unlocked multipliers help swing the advantage in Ryzen 5's direction.

Web Browser

The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. Intel's Core i3-8100 nudges ahead of the -7100 by a slim margin.

The MotionMark benchmarks, which focus on testing the graphics subsystem rather than JavaScript performance, are very sensitive to clock rate. That lends the previous-generation Core i3-7100 an upper hand over the -8100.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load-time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers, under warm- and cold-start conditions. Core i3-7100 once again beats the Core i3-8100 due to its higher frequency ceiling. We also see impressive performance enabled by the -8400's top Turbo Boost bin.

Video conferencing measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for video playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection during the workload to model real-world usage. This task responds well to extra threads, allows the Ryzen 5 1500X to shine. The Core i3-8100 offers solid performance for its price, and it ekes out a win over the competing Ryzen 3 models.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries that use the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, so we see a lot of the same behaviors. The overclocked Ryzen 3 1300X beats Intel's Core i3-8100, and the heftier Ryzen 5 models also perform well. Clock rates play a pivotal role in determining performance, too, as the quad-core Core i3-8350K bests a six-core Core i5-8400.

Spreadsheet-heavy tests emphasize clock rates even more, so again, Core i3-7100 outperforms the newer -8100. Meanwhile, the -7350K's static 4.2 GHz frequency lends it an advantage over the i3-8350K and i5-8400.

MORE: Best Cheap CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering

Single-threaded tests, such as the single-core Cinebench and POV-Ray benchmarks, highlight the Core i3-8100's only real disadvantage against previous-gen Kaby Lake models with higher clock rates. It takes a threaded metric to demonstrate the benefit of Coffee Lake's higher core counts.

The stock Ryzen 3 models aren't very attractive compared to Core i3-8100 in our multi-core Cinebench and POV-Ray tests. But overclocking shines a spotlight on the value of an unlocked ratio multiplier. Tuned Ryzen 3s nearly match the Core i3-8100, exposing a surprisingly close race in this type of workload. As expected, the bulkier Ryzen 5 models are even more effective, similar to the Core i5-8400.

Encoding & Compression

Core i3-8100 falls below the -7100 (and much of the rest of the field) during our LAME benchmark. AMD's 1300X and 1500X models hold small clock speed advantages over the -8100, but they manage to carve out a sizeable lead.

The multi-core 7-Zip compression workload naturally favors Ryzen 5 and Core i5, but an overclocked Core i3-8350K also offers incredible performance. The Core i3-8100 and tuned Ryzen 3 1300X fare similarly. The decompression workload goes AMD's way, with tuned Ryzen 5 CPUs leading the test pool.

There's a larger delta between Intel and AMD processors during our HandBrake x265 test compared to the x264 benchmark. This is likely due to the former's heavy use of AVX instructions. The Core i3-8100 beats both Ryzen 3 models in the x264 metric, though its lead is largely academic after we overclock AMD's CPUs. During the x265 workload, a heavier mixture of AVX instructions gives the -8100 a much larger lead. It even outpaces the Ryzen 5 models.

We also provide results from y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes Pi using AVX instructions. We tested with version 0.7.3.9474, which includes Ryzen optimizations. The y-cruncher tests show just how well Intel's processors perform in both single- and multi-threaded AVX workloads.

MORE: Best Cheap CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

The Core i3-8100 offers a surprisingly balanced performance profile, particularly in light of Intel's recommended price. We did measure a few slow-downs compared to the previous-gen Core i3-7100, but those were expected since Coffee Lake generally delivers more cores at slightly lower clock rates. Aside from those single-threaded outliers, Core i3-8100 is an impressive step forward that redefines what we expect from Intel's mainstream portfolio.

In the chart below, we plotted gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then converted into an FPS measurement. We're also presenting price-to-performance charts that get split up to include CPUs-only and extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add an extra $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).

Intel's Core i3-8100 punches above its price class during our gaming tests. Even an overclocked Ryzen 3 1300X can't match it. But the differences we observed would likely shrink if you swapped out our GeForce GTX 1080 for a more graphics-bound card like GeForce GTX 1060 or Radeon RX 480.

Most of our application benchmarks favored the Core i3-8100, though its lead over Ryzen 3 was typically pretty small. Overclocking helped AMD's CPUs on more than one occasion, but again, the margins were usually pretty slim. Overall, the Core i3-8100 offers solid application performance in a diverse range of workloads.

The Core i3-8100 is currently available online for ~$121. That's just $5 over Intel's recommended price, slotting in between AMD's Ryzen 3 1300X and 1200. Enthusiasts should be happy with two times the physical cores compared to Kaby Lake-based Core i3s. However, we still haven't seen the low-cost motherboards that'll eventually help value-minded builders capitalize on Core i3's allure. The cheapest Z-series motherboards cost ~$120, which isn't a smart pairing for this class of processor. We expect Intel's absentee B-series motherboards to be slightly more expensive than AMD's equivalents. However, Core i3-8100's performance advantage might offset the premium. We'll know more once those cheaper boards surface.

It'd be great to see an unlocked version of the -8100. For now, this model is surprisingly nimble at its stock settings. Overclockers may want to go for a Core i3-8350K or an AMD Ryzen CPU instead. Of course, we're looking forward to B-series motherboards that'll make the Core i3-8100 an even more attractive option.

MORE: Best Cheap CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Intel Core i3-8350K Review

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:00:01 +0000

Core i3 Goes Quad

While the Coffee Lake-based Core i7 and i5 CPUs benefit from 50% more cores, Intel's newest Core i3 CPUs enjoy an even more significant makeover. Previous i3s featured two Hyper-Threaded cores. But these Coffee Lake models come with four physical cores (and no Hyper-Threading), making them more capable in the tasks Core i3s once struggled with.

In fact, that jump from two to four cores puts Core i3 on the same level as prior Kaby Lake-based Core i5 CPUs. Better still, Intel's official pricing suggests the company now sells quad-core processors where its dual-core chips were once found. There's just one problem: shortages are causing prices to spike, negatively affecting Intel's value story. Hopefully that's rectified sooner than later.

The Core i3-8350K already has its work cut out: we weren't impressed by last generation's Core i3-7350K, which was too expensive, required a premium Z270-equipped motherboard for overclocking support, and didn't include a cooler. Now Intel has to hope the -8350K fares better in the face of limited availability and higher cost. Unfortunately, the company's continued insistence that a Z-series motherboard is needed for overclocking won't help the value equation. Doubly so since you still don't get a thermal solution.

Active Cores	Base Frequency	1	2	4	6
Intel Core i5-8600K	3.6 GHz	4.3 GHz	4.2 GHz	4.2 GHz	4.1 GHz
Intel Core i5-8400	2.8 GHz	4.0 GHz	3.9 GHz	3.9 GHz	3.8 GHz
Intel Core i3-8350K	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	-
Intel Core i3-7350K	4.2	4.2	4.2	-	-

As with older Core i3s, the Coffee Lake models do not include Turbo Boost technology. If you aren't overclocking, this means the -8350K runs at up to 4 GHz, regardless of workload, whereas Core i5 and i7 models accelerate to higher clock rates based on the number of active cores. Moreover, the new Core i3s are limited to DDR4-2400, while Core i5 and i7 give you official access to DDR4-2666.

Specifications

Core i3-8350K's extra cores impose a few other changes. For instance, L3 cache jumps to 8MB. Compare that to Core i3-7350K's 4MB or the 6MB found on Core i5 (Kaby Lake). The -8350K is also Intel's first 91W Core i3. Previously, Core i3-7350K set the high bar with its 65W TDP. It's only a shame that, as with all K-series processors, you're on the hook for your own thermal solution.

The -8350K does come with UHD Graphics 630, which becomes more relevant as we descend Intel's product stack in search of value. The thing is, we don't imagine many folks shopping for unlocked CPUs plan on using on-die graphics engines. GeForce GTX 1060 or Radeon RX 580 cards are more probable in the enthusiast-on-a-budget space.

Intel lists the -8350K at a recommended $168 to $179, similar to its dual-core -7350K. Of course, after a few months of availability, the -7350K started showing up around ~$30 less than its MSRP, where the CPU still sits today. It'd be great to see Coffee Lake CPUs hit their recommended prices sooner than later. Unfortunately, Core i3-8350K starts around $230. Pairing it up to the least-expensive Z370 motherboard, hovering around $120, pushes this chip into six-core Ryzen 5 1600 territory, with its bundled cooler and B350 motherboard support.

The Core i3-8350K also faces another (somewhat unexpected) competitor in Intel's 6C/6T Core i5-8400, which sells for just a few dollars more. We're plenty impressed with the well-rounded -8400 in both games and applications, even if you can't really tune it. The quad-core -8350K won't be able to match an i5 in heavily threaded workloads. But its unlocked multiplier should be better suited to gamers aiming for higher frequencies. We have the relevant contenders lined up for testing, so let's get to it.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD CPU Benchmark Comparisons

MORE: All CPUs Content

Overclocking, MCE & How We Test

Overclocking

Intel borrowed the AVX offset feature from its high-end processors, introducing it to mainstream CPUs during the Kaby Lake generation. Densely-packed AVX workloads are power-hungry, and thus generate far more heat than non-AVX tasks. The offset is responsible for pulling frequency back when the processor executes AVX instructions, allowing you to achieve higher overclocks without worrying about AVX workloads causing instability.

The feature came in handy for our Core i3-8350K overclocking efforts. We dialed in a 5 GHz clock rate at 1.32V and passed numerous non-AVX stress tests. But we couldn't achieve stability with AVX-enabled utilities unless we exceeded our preferred limit of 1.35V. Adjusting the AVX offset to -2 set a 4.8 GHz ceiling in AVX workloads. That proved to be Prime95-stable for extended periods.

Since Core i3-8350K doesn't come with a bundled heat sink and fan, we used our Corsair H115i for testing. Temperatures remained under 70°C with the beefy thermal solution, so heat wasn't a problem as we overclocked. Of course, your mileage may vary, especially if you top Core i3-8350K with a more value-oriented cooler.

We also have several overclocked Ryzen models in our test pool. These chips are famously sensitive to memory performance, so we attempted to test all overclocked AMD CPUs at a 3200 MT/s data rate. Ryzen 5 1400 was the only processor that fell short, stabilizing at 2933 MT/s.

Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE)

MSI motherboards feature a default Enhanced Turbo feature that allows K-series processors to run at their maximum Turbo Boost bin across all cores at all times. This setting modifies the CPU's clock rate and voltage to deliver higher performance, which is basically factory-sanctioned overclocking. Again, MSI turns this on by default in its BIOS, similar to most of its competition. Performance, power consumption, and heat are all affected, naturally. We manually disable this option for our stock CPU testing to reflect Intel's specifications.

MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC

MSI continues its Z-series Gaming Pro motherboards, giving the latest implementation similar features as previous models. Pricing should also end up similar. The exact board details and specifications can be found on the manufacturer's website.

Comparison Processors

AMD Ryzen 3 1300X

AMD Ryzen 5 1400

AMD Ryzen 5 1500X

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i5-8600K, i5-8400, i3-8350KMSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666, 2933, and 3200 AMD Socket AM4 AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600, Ryzen 5 1400, Ryzen 3 1300XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i3-7350K, i5-7400 MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703Corsair H115i

Test System & Configuration

Hardware

Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i5-8600K, i5-8400, i3-8350KMSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666, 2933, and 3200 AMD Socket AM4 AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600, Ryzen 5 1400, Ryzen 3 1300XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i3-7350K, i5-7400 MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703Corsair H115i

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

VRMark & 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

Four cores and a high clock rate benefit the Core i3-8350K in VRMark, particularly after overclocking. The -8350K even challenges the 65W Core i5-8400 at stock settings. A tuned Ryzen 5 1600 is the closest contender from AMD's camp.

We expected Core i3-8350K to trail the beefier processors during 3DMark's Fire Strike and Time Spy tests, and it does. The -8350K may fall behind much of its competition, but it leapfrogs Core i3-7350K and i5-7400 by a large margin.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation scales well with core count, so we find Ryzen 5 1600 up top after some tuning. Intel's stock six-core Core i5-8600K isn't far behind.

Core i3-8350K easily dispatches the Core i3-7350K in its default configuration, even after we tune Intel's Kaby Lake model. The -8350K responds well to overclocking too, though, and squeaks by the Core i5-8400.

If we could find the Core i3-8350K anywhere close to its MSRP, the chip would do battle at Ryzen 5 1500X's price point. AMD's 1500X beats the -8350K at stock settings. However, the tables turn once we start tuning.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Our Civilization VI AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game, and it tends to favor a mixture of high frequency and core count.

Core i3-7350K performs well in this test, though the i3-8350K leads once we start overclocking. Notably, Core i5-8600K offers nearly the same performance as an overclocked i3, but accomplishes this at its stock frequency. The Ryzen 3 1300X also performs well, beating out more expensive CPUs.

The Kaby Lake-based -7400 languishes at the bottom of the group due to its 3.5 GHz peak Turbo Boost frequency.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Core i3-8350K is impressive during the Civilization VI graphics benchmark at stock clocks rates, where it essentially ties the Core i5-8600K and surpasses the Core i5-8400. Tuning provides a nice boost that catapults Core i3 ahead of everything else in our test pool. It seems this title responds exceptionally well to four physical cores, even if the -8350K encounters higher frame time variance in the beginning seconds of our benchmark.

Battlefield 1 (DX11)

Core i3-7350K's bottom-dwelling performance serves to hammer home the -8350K's step up: it provides a 20% advantage over its predecessor at stock settings. Tuning the Kaby Lake-based chip doesn't do much to close the gap, either.

Ryzen 5 1500X can't match the Ryzen 5 1600 when we lock them to the same frequency, showing that Battlefield responds well to higher core counts, among other factors.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

The Warhammer 40,000: DoW III benchmark scales well with execution resources, but aggressive clock rates also provide a big benefit.

Intel's Core i3-8350K falls beneath the i5-8600K and i5-8400 at stock settings, and the tuned Ryzen 5 1600 also proves to be a formidable competitor.

Overclocking the Core i3-8350K unleashes a big speed-up, though, that reminds us of what we saw from Intel's Core i5-8600K. We don't have the overclocked -8600K in this batch of results, but it does outperform the -8350K with 122.8 FPS.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman & Shadow of Mordor

Grand Theft Auto V

Core i3-8350K falls behind the higher-end Coffee Lake models at stock settings, but overclocking changes that completely.

The Ryzen models aren't as competitive in this benchmark, even after overclocking.

A huge performance difference between the stock Core i3-7350K and -8350K is striking. This certainly isn't the generational step forward we're used to from Intel.

Hitman (2016)

The -8350K falls beneath AMD's 6C/12T Ryzen 5 1600 at stock settings, but overclocking sees the two chips switch places.

Core i5-8400 and -8600K profit greatly from their 6C/6T designs, carving out a lead over the lesser-equipped Core i3-8350K. Meanwhile, the older Core i3-7350K finds itself near the bottom of our chart; tuning does provide a considerable boost, though.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

This title is about as single-threaded as it gets, so clock rates and IPC throughput tend to affect frame rates most.

Core i3-7350K takes a big lead over the Coffee Lake-based processors in both stock and overclocked configurations.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Project CARS, Far Cry Primal & Rise of the Tomb Raider

Project CARS

Core i3-8350K performs surprisingly well in Project CARS, even beating the 6C/6T Core i5-8400. This could be because the -8350K features a stock 4 GHz clock rate, while Core i5-8400's base 2.8 GHz is pushed up to 4 GHz via Turbo Boost and may not benefit fully from its peak frequency bin.

Surprisingly, the overclocked Ryzen 5 1600 trails Intel's overclocked Core i3-7350K.

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal's Dunia Engine 2 responds well to high clock rates and IPC throughput. However, it also seems to prefer simultaneous multi-threading disabled. That plays well to the Core i5 and i3 models, which don't feature Hyper-Threading.

Intel's processors clump together at the top of the chart with nearly identical frame rates. But a bit of tuning helps the Core i3-8350K break through that 101 FPS ceiling.

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Rise of the Tomb Raider is a thorn in AMD's side. Even after recent game updates, which helped fix the most glaring issues, our test pool separates into two distinct tiers with the Intel processors up top and AMD processors below. We've seen this play out through most of our game testing with Coffee Lake-based CPUs.

Of course, while Intel wins when we look at raw performance, AMD still has a compelling value story, particularly in the application testing...

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office & Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

Most of the Adobe Suite responds well to high clock rates and IPC throughput, favoring Intel's CPUs. InDesign scales well with core count, but Intel's Coffee Lake models cling on to a lead nonetheless.

Web Browser

The web browsing tests are largely organized into per-core performance, so frequency and IPC throughput clearly matter most. These results mirror what we found in Adobe's suite: mainly, Intel's Coffee Lake processors offer higher performance.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load-time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers, under warm- and cold-start conditions. Intel's Core i3-8350K scores well in the test, though the -7350K's 4.2 GHz clock rate also facilitates impressive performance. It even beats Core i5-8400.

Video conferencing measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for video playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection during the workload to model real-world usage. As you might imagine, cores and cache play a big role in determining the outcome of this benchmark. The Ryzen 5 1600 leads the default-configured CPUs, and overclocking improves its standing. A stock Ryzen 5 1500X leverages its eight threads to beat the stock Core i3-8350K, but they switch places after overclocking. Surprisingly, the Core i5-8400's two extra cores don't translate to a big lead over the -8350K.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries that use the ImageMagick library. A tuned Ryzen 5 1600 tops the chart again, though the overclocked -8350K lands in second place. It's not as fast at Intel's factory-set frequency, and AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X even scores a win over the stock -8350K. Similar to what we saw in the video conferencing test, Core i3-7350K shows us the liability of its dual-core design in heavily-threaded workloads.

A spreadsheet-heavy test emphasizes clock rates most, though we do see the impact of a less successful memory overclock from our tuned Ryzen 5 1400. It might be surprising to see Ryzen 3 1300X on top of the other Ryzen CPUs at stock settings, but it and the 1500X have the highest boost frequencies (4.7 GHz) of our AMD models.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

Core i3-8350K performs well, as expected, during the single-threaded Cinebench test. But it isn't nearly as impressive when the workload spreads out over more cores. We do observe a big performance speed-up compared to Intel's Kaby Lake models, including the quad-core Core i5-7400. And the overclocked -8350K is surprisingly competitive with AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X after overclocking. However, the stock 1500X offers more performance due to its higher thread count.

Heavily-threaded workloads are AMD's forte these days, so its Ryzen 5 1600 fares unsurprisingly well in our rendering tests. Even at stock settings, the Ryzen 5 1600 leverages its 12 threads to lead almost all of the threaded benchmarks. On the flip side of the coin, Ryzen 5 1600 rocks the third-lowest boost frequency among our Ryzen line-up, so the stock configuration loses steam during the lightly-threaded tests. The value of AMD's unlocked multiplier is undisputed. But even after overclocking, we're still trading quite a bit of single-threaded performance to gain the impressive performance in rendering applications.

Core i5-8400 provides a solid mix of performance in both lightly- and heavily-threaded workloads.

Encoding & Compression

LAME responds well to higher frequencies, as evidenced by the tight grouping of overclocked models at the top of the chart. Core i3-7350K leads the group at stock settings, with Core i3-8350K close behind. Intel's Core i5-8400 trails most of the test pool, suggesting that it might not be hitting its peak Turbo Boost frequency consistently through our benchmark.

AMD's Ryzen 5 1600 dominates the compression and decompression workloads, but all of the Ryzen processors excel in our integer-heavy decompression workload after tuning. Core i5-7400's relatively low 3.5 GHz ceiling hinders performance significantly during the 7-Zip workloads.

A quick reminder: we tested the overclocked -8350K with a 4.8 GHz AVX offset, which is particularly important in the HandBrake and y-cruncher tests. There's a larger delta between the Intel and AMD processors during our HandBrake x265 test than the x264 test, and it's likely due to the former's heavy use of AVX instructions. Core i3-8350K is surprisingly adept in both workloads, even challenging the Ryzen 5 1500X at stock frequencies during the x264 test run. A quick glance at Core i3-7350K again speaks volumes of the huge step forward Intel took with Coffee Lake.

We also provide results from y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes Pi using AVX instructions. We tested with version 0.7.3.9474, which includes Ryzen optimizations. Despite a 4.8 GHz AVX offset, the tuned -8350K offers stellar AVX performance.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

Dramatic changes to the Core line-up are a boon to PC enthusiasts, and there is little to complain about in the performance department. Intel's Core i3-8350K gives us twice as many cores at a supposedly comparable price point versus the previous generation. But considering we didn't like that last model much, the -8350K would need to be exceptional to earn our affection.

It's hard to beat an overclocked Core i3-8350K for gaming unless you have the cash for a pricier Core i5 or i7. In fact, the i3-8350K is surprisingly competitive with those more expensive Coffee Lake-based models if you spend some time overclocking. And Core i3-8350K destroys Kaby Lake in everything. An overclocked Ryzen 5 1600 provides the biggest challenge from AMD, but it's only able to go up against the stock -8350K. Overclocking propels this chip into a league of its own. The less expensive Ryzen 5 1500X also makes a compelling case for enthusiasts willing to turn the overclocking dials, but its much lower stock performance isn't as attractive.

The Core i3-8350K is surprisingly agile in our application suite. We recorded impressive performance in lightly-threaded applications, and observed competitive results in the multi-threaded workloads, too. Of course, any threaded benchmark is going to go Ryzen 5 1600's way. But Intel's quad-core Core i3 does help close distance that Kaby Lake lost to Ryzen, so the losses in heavily-threaded workloads aren't as pronounced.

And that's the issue we have right now with Ryzen 5 1600. You gain some performance in productivity workloads, as expected from a 6C/12T processor, but you lose quite a bit of single-threaded speed in other applications. Core i3-8350K presents a more balanced profile.

Speaking of balanced, the Core i5-8400 is our biggest winner here. You can drop it into a cheaper B-series platform, once those arrive, and get a really good mix of performance across the board. It also comes with a bundled cooler. You won't get the extreme gaming performance available from an overclocked Core i3-8350K, but you're going to gain a lot of flexibility in other workloads. Software is undoubtedly evolving to utilize multi-core architectures more extensively, so the two extra cores should come in handy down the road.

We weren't particularly fond of Intel's Core i3-7350K. Its high-end motherboard requirement and lack of a bundled cooler were out of touch for this value-sensitive segment. Core i3-8350K suffers from the same problems, compounded by limited availability leading to insane premiums. Even at Intel's MSRP, you're only a few bucks away from the six-core -8400 that comes with a thermal solution and drops into a cheaper motherboard.

Given what we've seen from Coffee Lake, it's time to steer you clear of Kaby Lake. But Intel won't let us. The lack of any meaningful Coffee Lake availability is causing severe price gouging, making it difficult for us to recommend anything from Intel's line-up right now. Should the Coffee Lake models fall to where they're supposed to be, they'll represent a big step forward in computing power for your dollar.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content