Intel's Nova Lake CPUs are no stranger to leaks. We've been talking about the processors for close to two years now, with rumors swirling about bLLC and a 52-core flagship for well over a year. However, this week (and this month more broadly), we've seen leaks hit a fever pitch, suggesting that Intel is finally gearing up to release a generation of processors that's been the zeitgeist for over 24 months.

Intel hasn't shied away from discussing Nova Lake, with Intel's enthusiast channel VP Robert Hallock telling Tom's Hardware Premium that it's one of the most important launches for the company ever. At the beginning of the year, Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan said that Nova Lake would launch in the second half of 2026, and despite expected hubbub about delays/cancellations, that's the North Star Intel itself has set. So, that's also going to be our North Star here.

There are three stories that have come out over the past week and a half. First, a screenshot of some high-level details about Nova Lake surfaced online, showing the launch schedule and platform details. The slide in question is almost certainly from one of Intel's partners and not Intel itself.

Just in the past few days, we've also seen a barrage of Z990 motherboards from ASRock surface in the NBD shipping database, as well as some entries in the SiSoftware database for a next-gen HP EliteBook X sporting an unknown Intel processor.

An increase in the number of leaks/rumors, especially those that are more than a known leaker writing up a post on X, usually points to an imminent launch. We've heard about Nova Lake for over two years, yes, but now we're seeing more concrete details. In addition to the shipping manifest, snapped slide, and SiSoftware results, we also saw two Z990 motherboards ourselves at Computex earlier this year, with a third rumored. We will not predict the Nova Lake release date here. However, the launch is coming soon. That much we're confident in.

Intel's typical release cycle for desktop CPUs

In order to establish a timeline, we first need to look back. We could go back far, but we're cutting the timeline short here at Alder Lake. That was when Intel finally moved off 14nm, following generation after generation of either an underwhelming launch or a delayed one, and it's most relevant to what Intel is doing today.

The timeline above is fairly straightforward. Intel has, short of 2025, launched a new generation of desktop processors in the fall every year for the past five years. This annual cadence was even more intense previously; 7th-Gen and 8th-Gen CPUs were both released in 2017, and 9th-Gen in 2018. Then, Intel took a year off and followed up with 10th-Gen in 2020 and 11th-Gen in early 2021. Keep in mind that we're talking about desktop CPU launches with a new microarchitecture here. Obviously, Intel has released a ton of other products in between the gaps.

The interesting bit about the timeline is actually the end with Arrow Lake Refresh. When we spoke to Robert Hallock earlier this year, he told us that a team that was "pretty much completely different" worked on Arrow Lake Refresh compared to Arrow Lake. That might explain the strangely large gap between Arrow Lake and Arrow Lake Refresh. Even looking at the Arrow Lake and Arrow Lake Refresh stacks side-by-side, it's obvious that a different mentality went into how they were positioned in the market. That team is in in-place now, and Hallock told us the team is "moving faster than we ever have in product, in release cadence."

Don't take Hallock's comments about Intel moving faster than ever at face value — he was probably being at least a little hyperbolic — but the sentiment is clear. Following the poor reception of Arrow Lake, Intel reorganized and set a new roadmap in motion that extends out to 2030, and now, that roadmap is being executed, starting earlier this year with Arrow Lake Refresh. That sets up Arrow Lake Refresh similar to 11th-Gen Rocket Lake, serving as somewhat of a stopgap before the next generation properly arrives (that is, thankfully, where the comparisons between Arrow Lake Refresh and Rocket Lake end).

Back to Nova Lake. Earlier this year at Computex, we saw two Z990 motherboards, one of which we confirmed was not a finalized unit. The complete development process takes generally four to six months for a motherboard, and you can add another two months or so on top of that for channel sales, as pallets of PCBs are loaded onto ships and swim across the Pacific Ocean. That was in June.

The shipping manifest that surfaced this week showed shipments in July for ASRock. Critically, it also shows shipments from two different sources: Taiwan and Vietnam. Given what we saw at Computex and the two different sources for ASRock, we're firmly past the early prototype and engineering validation stage of motherboard design. Assuming everything goes according to plan, that means Z990 motherboards should be ready to go on store shelves by no later than October or November.

Keep in mind that does not mean Nova Lake will launch in October or November, just that motherboards will most likely be ready by then. This aligns with what motherboard vendors told us earlier this year, with some brands pointing to Q3 but most to Q4 for a Z990 rollout.

Parsing the details about Nova Lake so far

Currently, there are two camps when it comes to when Nova Lake will release. Some say it'll arrive this year, likely in Q4, while others say CES 2027 in January of next year. As we wrote earlier in the article, we will not predict the Nova Lake release date. However, we will side with one of the camps here as more likely based on what we've seen so far.

Given everything we've seen, a late 2026 launch is more likely. The strongest evidence of that is the comment from Tan earlier this year, where the executive said Nova Lake is "coming at the end of 2026." The critical context is that Tan made that comment as part of his prepared remarks, preceding the actual financials that you hear in an earnings call. An earnings call is not a keynote, and making material promises you knowingly can't keep can land you in hot water.

Executives massage the truth all the time during earnings calls — that's half the reason there are prepared remarks ahead of the financials. However, that key detail about an end of 2026 launch isn't massaging the truth. It's a concrete claim devoid of weasel words and qualifiers. In addition, Intel's fiscal year aligns with a calendar year; when Tan said end of 2026, he meant end of 2026, regardless of fiscal or calendar year.

It's possible that something changed between now and January when that call took place. However, the timeline still lines up given the various motherboards that showed up between June and July of this year. At this point, Intel can slide the actual release date around by a bit, but not by months. Retailers aren't going to sit on pallets of motherboards with no home indefinitely.

The one wrinkle in this is the leaked slide you can see above, which claims Nova Lake will enter mass production in Q4, with a launch in Q1 2027. There are reasons to be skeptical of this slide, however. For starters, the slide doesn't say anything that hasn't been heavily rumored for months (sometimes even years) at this point: 52-core flagship, up to 288MB of bLLC, LGA 1954 socket, and multi-generation socket support. The strange bit is a mention of Hammer Lake at the bottom of the slide.

We've heard very little about Hammer Lake, and nothing that's passed muster for us to cover on Tom's Hardware. Even among the rumors, the launch has been pinned somewhere in the 2029/2030 range, if the lineup is even real to begin with. Regardless, Hammer Lake isn't what we'd expect to see next to Razor Lake — the generation rumored to follow Nova — and certainly not what we'd expect to see under a "Q4 2027+" badge.

That doesn't mean the slide is fake; it doesn't appear to be fake. There's some very critical context missing from it, though. It's a Chinese source, but did it come from an OEM? A distributor? A retailer? The validity of the slide changes dramatically depending on that. Further, we're only seeing maybe half of a single slide here. There's too much context missing to take this single slide and run with it as concrete truth.

At the very least, it fares poorly against prepared comments made by Intel's CEO, motherboards we've seen (and held) ourselves, and have circulated through photos online, and strong indications from Intel's motherboard partners that they'll be ready for a launch in Q4. Add on top of that the fact that Intel took 2025 completely off for new desktop launches (and its usual cadence of launching in the fall), and a Q4 rollout of Nova Lake looks far more likely.

Likely isn't the same as confirmed. We're still awaiting details on Nova Lake from Intel proper, and hopefully those will arrive soon. Given the anticipation Intel has already built around Nova Lake without a single performance claim or spec shared, we'll have a lot to talk about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐ Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 7700X3D

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

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

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

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

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

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

⭐ Winner: Tie

More CPU Faceoffs

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

Intel has entered high-volume manufacturing using ASML's High NA extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography technology for a subset of its Intel Core Ultra Series 3 "Panther Lake" processors, becoming the first company to ship high-volume logic products manufactured with the technology. ASML announced the milestone in an official press release on Wednesday, July 15, confirming that Intel Foundry is running the qualified High NA layers on its Intel 18A process node in Oregon.

According to ASML, Intel is using High NA EUV to pattern selected Intel 18A layers, with products already shipping to customers at yields matched to those achieved on ASML's existing NXE EUV platform. These layers are dual-qualified, meaning the same layer can be exposed on either an existing 0.33 NA NXE scanner or a 0.55 NA EXE scanner, with the resulting wafers being interchangeable.

High NA EUV has long been viewed as the successor to today's EUV lithography, promising to extend semiconductor scaling by enabling manufacturers to print smaller, denser circuit patterns that are becoming difficult to achieve with existing tools. Until now, the platform had been confined to R&D work. ASML’s announcement marks the first time High NA EUV has been used to produce and ship a high-volume commercial logic product.

Panther Lake, built on the Intel 18A manufacturing process, is spearheading this transition. Rather than replacing the company's entire lithography flow, Intel is applying High NA EUV to specific layers while the remainder of the chip continues to be manufactured using conventional lithography.

High NA EUV builds on the same 13.5-nanometer extreme ultraviolet light used by today's scanners but increases the optical system's numerical aperture (NA) — how much light a lens system can collect and focus onto a silicon wafer — from 0.33 to 0.55. The higher value resolves finer features in a single exposure, allowing chipmakers to print smaller patterns with greater precision and process control.

This increased resolution is expected to reduce reliance on complex multi-patterning techniques for some of the industry's most demanding layers, thereby simplifying manufacturing and improving feature fidelity. In the long term, these capabilities are expected to support higher transistor densities and improved performance in future processors, particularly as AI workloads continue driving demand for increasingly advanced semiconductor technologies.

"With increased resolution and better process control, the introduction of High NA EUV marks a substantial development in semiconductor lithography," said ASML President and CEO Christophe Fouquet. "We are proud to play a role in enabling the smaller, denser patterning that will accelerate advancements in AI and other emerging technologies."

Intel and ASML have been working towards this milestone for several years. In 2024, Intel completed installation of one of the industry's first commercial High NA EUV lithography systems, the TWINSCAN EXE:5000, at its Hillsboro, Oregon, research and development facility. The company later became the first to qualify ASML's second-generation TWINSCAN EXE:5200B, which increases wafer throughput and overlay accuracy while incorporating an improved EUV light source over its predecessor.

While the announcement represents High NA EUV's commercial debut, it does not mean Panther Lake is manufactured entirely using the new lithography platform. Instead, Intel has qualified High NA for selected layers, an approach that mirrors how new lithography generations are typically introduced into advanced semiconductor production before broader adoption across future nodes.

Intel Foundry Executive Vice President and General Manager Naga Chandrasekaran said that qualifying the High NA process option on selected Intel 18A product layers enables the company's existing tool fleet to deliver higher manufacturing output while providing flexibility for future process technologies.

Panther Lake itself is not a future product. Intel launched Core Ultra Series 3 at CES on January 5, 2026, opened preorders the following day, and put systems on shelves globally from January 27. The Core Ultra X9 378H followed in April alongside the value-tier Core Series 3, code-named Wildcat Lake, and the handheld-focused Arc G3 parts arrived on May 28.

The announcement’s statement that the product is shipping to customers refers to wafer flow from the fab into the supply chain, rather than to a product launch. ASML says the two companies will continue working on High NA readiness, with the flexibility to incorporate the technology into future nodes based on customer needs — most immediately, Intel 14A, which Intel has designed to use High NA on a set of its tightest-pitch layers.

Intel's next-gen desktop family, Nova Lake, is expected to take a generational leap in terms of performance, and a big part of that is the rumored introduction of bLLC (Big Last Level Cache). It would be the company's answer to AMD's X3D chips, but implemented even more aggressively, from what we can tell so far. Now, a new leak from Jaykihn says Intel has added two new Core Ultra 5 SKUs with bLLC to the lineup, both featuring 22 cores in total.

The leaker accidentally tweeted out the wrong specs at first, so we've only embedded their correction post. According to the leak, each chip features a 22-core config comprising 6 P-Cores, 12 E-Cores, and 4 LP-E cores on a single tile. That would access to up to 144MB of bLLC. The rumor indicates one unlocked SKU with a 125W TDP and a locked SKU with a 65W TDP; there are seemingly no other differences between the two.

Dual-tile variants of Nova Lake-S could push the cache count up to 288MB, but those will likely be reserved for truly high-end SKUs. The Blue Team still offering a competitive midrange option with a lot of cache to help with gaming performance would be a welcome development. As a reminder, Nova Lake will likely use the Coyote Cove architecture for its P-cores and the Arctic Wolf architecture for its E-cores, according to leaks and rumors.

Previously, we covered how the alleged 42-core Nova Lake-S silicon could actually have 44 cores, combining 2x 8P+12E tiles, perhaps freeing up 6P+12E tiles that could be used for cheaper bLLC-equipped chips. At the time, we predicted that a Core Ultra 7 SKU with 22 cores could be the recipient of this silicon, but now this leak points toward it being used for Core Ultra 5 SKUs instead. Of course, the prospect of bLLC being limited to unlocked K-series models seems to have withered away at this point.

Nova Lake-S is shaping up to be a vast and expansive family for Intel with several SKUs that might not even make it to market by the time it launches as the Core Ultra 400 series next year. It remains to be seen how the company will name all these different models. So far, rumors indicate a CES 2027 announcement is imminent for Intel's next-gen family, but the ongoing component crisis could throw things off.

Intel on Friday confirmed that it had increased prices of some of its consumer and server CPUs, citing market dynamics, rising costs, and soaring demand for these products. While select enthusiast processors increased from $30 to $50, data center-grade products increased by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. Intel is among many suppliers that have recently hiked prices of their products, citing increasing costs and demand that exceeds their supply.

"The recent pricing updates reflect current market dynamics, including rising supply chain costs and strong demand for our Intel Core Ultra 200S Plus processors," an Intel spokesperson told Tom's Hardware. "These updates are in line with recent price increases for other Intel product families based on similar factors."

This week it turned out that Intel had quietly increased recommended customer prices (RCPs) of its latest Core Ultra 200-series Plus processors for desktops — the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and the Core Ultra 7 250K Plus — by $30 - $50, depending on the model. Both processors belong to the Arrow Lake family and, like the rest of them, are produced by TSMC. Yet, Intel's original 'non-Plus' Core Ultra 200-series processors did not increase their MSRP. The flagship Core Ultra 9 285K still carries a $599 RCP, just like it did at its launch in Q2 2024. Something similar applies to the least advanced Arrow Lake processor for desktops — the Core Ultra 5 225 — that has an RCP between $183 and $236, which is a bit lower than its launch RCP of $241.

If Intel did see supply-chain inflation, it would be reasonable to expect the company to adjust prices of the whole family. Instead, the company raised prices only on select products that apparently had become unexpectedly attractive to customers who can afford them and who have probably demonstrated willingness to buy them above recommended prices. This means that we are not dealing with a simple cost pass-through, but rather with a price hike associated with strong demand for specific SKUs.

When it comes to data center-oriented processors, we see rather massive price hikes. While higher-end Xeon 6 'Granite Rapids' CPUs cost less than they used to at launch in 2024, they are noticeably more expensive after Intel slashed their recommended prices in 2025, and they can be twofold higher when compared to retail prices from mid-2025. Perhaps the biggest surprise is that select Xeon 8000-series 'Emerald Rapids' processors now carry higher RCPs than they used to when they were released in late 2023.

All Intel Xeon processors are produced internally (so Intel cannot blame higher costs on TSMC), and while Intel gets raw materials from its partners, it is doubtful that overpriced photoresist can significantly affect RCPs of CPUs that sell for thousands of dollars. Meanwhile, Intel has been saying for several quarters now that demand for its Xeon processors exceeds supply. Therefore, it makes a lot of sense for Intel to finally capitalize on that and increase RCPs of popular models.

There is a caveat, though. Actual prices of data center hardware tend to differ from list prices as they depend on many factors, including volumes and strategic relations between suppliers and consumers. To that end, while it is evident that Intel has increased RCPs of its Xeon CPUs, it remains to be seen how this affects its average selling prices (ASPs) for the ongoing quarter and for the whole year.

Intel is expected to push the boundaries on power draw with its upcoming Nova Lake series processors, which will rival the best CPUs. According to newly leaked information, the flagship 52-core desktop variant is expected to feature a dual-compute tile architecture with a massive PL2 limit of 474W. The information was shared by LC Tech Leaks and confirmed by Jaykihn, who has a pretty solid track record with Intel hardware.

PL2, or Power Limit 2, represents the maximum power a CPU can draw during short boost periods. That said, a PL2 target of 474W remains quite demanding, although a previous rumor suggests Intel may also have a PL4 emergency power limit over 700W. It is important to note that these power limits may only apply to the top-end models with the dual-tile architecture.

Additionally, the leak also sheds light on the upcoming platform, including the previously rumored LGA1954 socket. We already know that Nova Lake-S will require a new generation of motherboards. Motherboard vendors are expected to classify their boards by sustained PL1 power levels, with configurations for 35W, 65W, 125W, and 175W CPUs. Enthusiast-grade motherboards, likely the Z990 series, are also rumored to feature three EPS 8-pin CPU power connectors instead of the traditional two. While vendors will have the option to include a third connector, its primary purpose would be to support extreme overclocking and would not affect the CPU's rated performance profile.

The upcoming Nova Lake-S lineup is expected to carry the ‘Core Ultra 400S’ moniker and will be Intel's biggest desktop CPU overhaul in years. We’ve previously reported leaked specifications indicating configurations ranging from 6 to 52 cores, with support for DDR5-8000 memory. The flagship 52-core model is expected to feature 16 performance cores, 32 efficiency cores, and a new Big Last Level Cache (bLLC) design to take on AMD's 3D V-Cache gaming dominance. The company is also rumored to introduce integrated Xe3 graphics, Thunderbolt 5, PCIe 5.0 connectivity, and an upgraded NPU for AI workloads.

While these specifications are unconfirmed, it is clear that Intel is targeting substantial gains in gaming, multi-threaded performance, and overall platform capabilities with its next-gen processors.

Some say Intel robbed consumers of the Core Series 2 processor with P-cores (codenamed Bartlett Lake), and that the chips could have competed against the best CPUs for gaming. However, German publication PC Games Hardware (PCGH) recently put the flagship of the Bartlett Lake series, the Core 9 273PQE, through a series of benchmarks and discovered that it couldn’t even outperform the Core i9-13900K released four years ago.

Some Intel enthusiasts have been vocal about their desire for Intel to release a processor lineup that features only P-cores. Bartlett Lake is Intel’s answer to these demands. Essentially, Bartlett Lake is just Raptor Lake stripped of its E-cores. Speculation and leaks about Bartlett Lake have circulated for a couple of years now, but it wasn't until recently that Intel unleashed it.

Bartlett Lake comes four years after the introduction of the 13th Generation Raptor Lake processors and three years after the refresh of the 14th Generation Raptor Lake lineup. Needless to say, many enthusiasts were happy to finally see Bartlett Lake until Intel dropped the bomb that the new series would be exclusive to OEMs and embedded applications, locking out mainstream consumers from the lineup. Bartlett Lake still runs on the LGA1700 platform, so there are mods to run it on conventional Intel 700-series motherboards.

Intel Core 9 273PQE Specifications

The Core 9 273PQE is the processor that purists have been dreaming about for years: a Raptor Lake chip built exclusively with 12 Raptor Cove P-cores. Impressively, the Core 9 273PQE boasts 50% more P-cores than either the Core i9-13900K or Core i9-14900K. When it comes to clock speeds, the Core 9 273PQE outpaces the Core i9-13900K and comes within just 5% of the Core i9-14900K's P-core boost clock frequency.

PCGH used the ASRock IMB-X1714 motherboard with the W680 chipset to host the Core 9 273PQE. For memory, the news outlet selected DDR5-5600 C46 modules to complement the 12-core processor. Only two specific memory kits are on the Qualified Vendor List (QVL). This motherboard comes with a chipset made for Bartlett Lake, unlike the mods we've seen to get the chips running on consumer chipsets.

The publication compared the Core 9 273PQE to a plethora of contemporary and previous-generation processors, though for conciseness, we’ve picked a small subset of the outlet’s results. To ensure an apples-to-apples comparison with the Core i9-13900K, PCGH also ran it on the ASRock IMB-X1714 with the DDR5-5600 C46 memory (the publication usually runs DDR5-6000 C28 memory with LGA1700 chips).

Intel Core 9 273PQE Benchmarks

Despite featuring 12 P-cores, the Core 9 273PQE delivered gaming performance comparable to the Ryzen 7 9700X and Core i5-14600K. With DDR5-5600 C46 memory, it was only slightly faster than the Core i9-13900K. However, when using high-performance DDR5-6000 C28 memory, the Core i9-13900K outperformed the Core 9 273PQE by up to 8.5%. That goes to show the impact of memory performance in gaming, as the switch from DDR5-5600 C46 to DDR5-6000 C28 increased the Core i9-13900K’s gaming performance index by 9.66%.

In application performance, the Core 9 273PQE outperformed the Core i5-14600K and Ryzen 7 9700X by 2.61% and 8.06%, respectively. However, the performance gap widened considerably when compared to the Core i9-13900K and Core i9-13900K (W680), with those models being up to 42.73% and 23.09% faster, respectively.

There is good reason to believe that the Core 9 273PQE didn't quite live up to its full potential, and several factors contributed to it. One of the primary limitations is that Intel has restricted the Bartlett Lake to commercial clients. There is little to no flexibility for fine-tuning or pairing the processor with faster memory, which has proven to improve gaming performance. Additionally, the lack of optimization for mainstream applications further hampers the chip’s performance. Then again, many games do not scale performance beyond eight cores, so the additional cores in the Core 9 273PQE offer diminishing returns in gaming scenarios.

Bartlett Lake is fine where it is, and we should leave it alone. Our attention is better directed toward Intel's upcoming Core Ultra 400S (codenamed Nova Lake) chips, which are scheduled to launch later this year.

Intel’s newly launched Arrow Lake Refresh (Core Ultra 200S Plus) desktop CPUs finally deliver what was originally expected from Arrow Lake. While the first generation struggled to impress, the refreshed lineup brings meaningful improvements in performance at an excellent value. As a result, these new chips are far easier to recommend, especially for users looking to build a capable mid-range PC without overspending on the CPU.

That brings us to this particular face-off between the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D. Both processors target gamers and mainstream users looking for a balance of price and performance. In our in-depth review, we found the 250K Plus particularly impressive and worthy of being a part of the best CPUs for gaming. The 7600X3D, on the other hand, holds its own with its proven 3D V-Cache technology to sustain higher gaming performance.

In this comparison, we break down how the two stack up across our six-round gauntlet to see which one truly offers the better value.

This faceoff breaks down how two CPUs compare to each other in a head-to-head battle. If you'd like to read more about either processor, as well as see our full suite of tests, make sure to read our Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus review and AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D review.

Features and Specifications: Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D

Let’s begin by comparing some of the key specifications to get a better understanding of how these two chips stack up against each other.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is based on Intel’s Arrow Lake architecture built on TSMC’s 3nm node, similar to the (non-Plus) Core Ultra 200S desktop CPUs. The hybrid core architecture includes a total of 18 cores split into six performance cores, 12 efficiency cores, and 18 threads. The Ryzen 5 7600X3D is built around AMD’s Zen 4 architecture paired with stacked 3D V-Cache on a 5nm process and sticks to a traditional layout with six cores and 12 threads.

Coming to the clock speeds, Intel pushes higher peak frequencies. The 250K Plus boosts up to 5.3 GHz on its P-cores and 4.6 GHz on E-cores. The 7600X3D is far more conservative offering up to 4.7 GHz boost clock speeds. That said, the AMD chip compensates for lower frequencies with its massive cache pool of 102MB (96MB L3 cache + 6MB L2 cache) versus Intel’s 60MB combined L2 and L3 cache.

Having higher cache gives the 7600X3D an advantage in gaming workloads, where the reduced memory latency leads to improved frame consistency. However, the higher core count on the Intel chip makes it more suitable for multi-threaded workloads which was also evident in our productivity tests. More on that later.

Power and efficiency are key points of distinction between the two CPUs where the 7600X3D is a better choice (at least on paper) as it operates at a lower 65W TDP (88W PPT). The 250K Plus draws more power with a rated 125W base power and 159W maximum turbo power. On the flip side, Intel offers support for faster DDR5 memory speeds, officially rated up to DDR5-7200, compared to DDR5-5200 on AMD’s chip.

⭐Winner: Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus

Picking a clear winner isn’t entirely straightforward here simply due to the differences in architecture. However, the 250K Plus seems to be a better choice on paper, offering more cores and threads, higher clock speeds, and support for faster memory than the 7600X3D. While AMD’s larger cache does provide an advantage in certain gaming scenarios, it isn’t enough to offset Intel’s stronger all-round performance. As a result, we picked the 250K Plus as the winner for this round.

Gaming Benchmarks and Performance: Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D

Gaming remains one of the most important battlegrounds for mainstream desktop CPUs. Both chips have completely different priorities where Intel relies on higher clock speeds and architectural improvements, while AMD leverages its 3D V-Cache technology to maximize gaming throughput.

To have a proper understanding of how they handle gaming performance, we tested both processors across 17 games at 1080p using high and ultra settings. An Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 was used for our testing to eliminate any potential GPU bottlenecks and ensure the results accurately represent CPU-limited gaming performance.

Looking at our 17 game 1080p performance geomean, the 250K Plus delivers an average of 153.5 FPS, which puts it roughly 10% behind the 7600X3D at 168.8 FPS. This is largely thanks to AMD’s 3D V-Cache design that continues to excel in gaming workloads by reducing latency. That said, Intel’s result is still notably competitive, especially if we consider the 1% lows where the gap reduces to 4.6%. The Ryzen 5 7600X3D clearly has an edge, thus making it the more suitable choice for buyers focused purely on maximizing gaming performance.

Now let’s take a look at how the chips perform in individual games. The 7600X3D maintains a lead in a majority of the games that we tested thanks to its dominance in cache-sensitive titles. In Minecraft RT, Final Fantasy XIV, and F1 2024 the X3D processor gains a sizable lead of 75.8%, 43.4%, and 35.9%, respectively. The 7600X3D also manages to stay ahead in Baldur’s Gate 3, Hitman 3, Counter-Strike 2, and Far Cry 6, giving the 7600X3D the stronger overall FPS average across the full gaming suite.

The 250K Plus stays competitive and even manages some noteworthy wins in newer AAA games. Doom: The Dark Ages favored the Intel chip by 5.1%, while Hogwarts Legacy was its biggest gain at 6.7%. That's one of the titles that benefits from iBOT, which is a performance-boosting feature available to the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus in select games.

Titles including The Last of Us Part I, Monster Hunter Wilds, Flight Simulator 2024, and Oblivion Remastered also leaned toward the 250K Plus but with much smaller margins.

Outside raw FPS numbers, the 250K Plus posted the highest average gaming clocks in the comparison at 5,340 MHz, and well ahead of the Ryzen 5 7600X3D at 4,710 MHz. The lower clocks on the 7600X3D are primarily due to the voltage and thermal limits surrounding the stacked cache design. Despite leading in gaming performance, the 7600X3D consumed only 65.3W on average during our game tests, which is substantially lower than the 250K Plus at 82.3W.

This efficiency is clearly visible in the FPS-per-watt chart as well. The 7600X3D delivered 2.58 FPS/W compared to 1.87 FPS/W for the 250K Plus, giving AMD roughly a 38% efficiency advantage. As for thermals, things take a complete turn in Intel’s favor, with the 250K Plus averaging just 48°C during gaming, making it one of the coolest-running chips on the chart and notably cooler than the 7600X3D at 64°C. Intel’s lower temperatures suggest the chip is much easier to cool during gaming workloads despite its higher power draw.

Finally, the value analysis once again swings in favor of AMD as the 7600X3D tops the FPS-per-dollar chart with a value score of 0.84, narrowly ahead of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 0.77 FPS/$.

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D

While Intel delivers strong overall value with balanced gaming performance, lower average temperatures, and competitive pricing, AMD’s superior gaming performance and efficiency ultimately helps the 7600X3D retain the better overall gaming value proposition.

Productivity Benchmarks and Performance: Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D

AMD’s X3D processors have proven to be the best gaming CPUs on the market, and although they offer respectable productivity performance, their limited core and thread counts can hold them back. Intel, on the other hand, has consistently maintained an edge in productivity workloads, and the same trend continues here. The 250K Plus packs significantly more cores and threads as well as a higher boost clock speed than the Ryzen 5 7600X3D. To see how both chips perform in real-world applications, we tested them across a wide range of multithreaded and single-threaded benchmarks.

The 250K Plus completely dominates the 7600X3D as it scores 465 points, a massive 114% lead, compared to just 217 on the 7600X3D in the overall multithreaded geomean. This advantage is visible in almost every test that we carried out. Starting with Cinebench, the 250K Plus scores 1,860 points in Cinebench 2024 and 7,523 points in Cinebench 2026, outperforming the 7600X3D by roughly 126% and 123%, respectively.

In rendering workloads including POV-Ray multi-core, the 250K Plus delivers 11,642 points compared to 4,600 on AMD’s chip, which is a staggering 153% advantage. Blender results tell a similar story, with the Intel processor more than doubling the performance of the 7600X3D. The 250K Plus scores 133 vs 63 in Junkshop, 193 vs 91 in Monster, and 97 vs 47 in Classroom, giving Intel leads ranging from 106% to 112%.

Ray tracing and video encoding workloads also favor Intel with the 250K Plus scoring 32,655 points in V-Ray 6 versus 15,165 on the 7600X3D. Corona Renderer shows a smaller but a substantial 80% lead for Intel while in Handbrake encoding tests, the 250K Plus nearly doubles performance once again, delivering 24.1 FPS in the x265 encode test versus 12.3 FPS on the Ryzen chip.

The only workload where the 7600X3D remains competitive is RAW image decoding, where both chips are effectively tied at 14.04 and 14.03. However, Intel regains its advantage in JPEG-XL image processing, outperforming the 7600X3D by nearly 87% in multithreaded image encoding and roughly 49% in decoding workloads.

In single-threaded performance, the 250K Plus once again glides ahead, though the margins are much smaller compared to the multi-threaded results. If we look at the single-threaded geomean chart, the 250K Plus scores 261 points versus 204 on the 7600X3D, giving Intel roughly a 28% lead overall.

Cinebench once again highlights Intel’s advantage, with the 250K Plus scoring 139.6 points in Cinebench 2024 single-core and 579 points in Cinebench 2026 single-core. These results place the chip approximately 29% to 33% ahead of the 7600X3D. POV-Ray single-core widens the gap even further, with Intel posting 1,093 points compared to 649 on AMD’s processor, which is a massive 68% lead.

In audio encoding benchmarks the 250K Plus completes the 250MB LAME encode test in 9.56 seconds versus 10.91 seconds on the Ryzen processor, while the larger 1.5GB encode workload finishes roughly 16% faster on the Intel CPU. JPEG-XL single-threaded image encoding is one of the few workloads where the gap narrows considerably, with Intel holding only a minor 3.4% lead.

⭐Winner: Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus

Thanks to its higher core count, there’s no doubt that the 250K Plus is a productivity workhorse as it consistently delivers far superior performance in both multithreaded and single-threaded benchmarks. For users primarily focused on productivity, content creation, or mixed-use workloads, the 250K Plus is clearly the stronger and more versatile processor.

Overclocking: Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D

AMD’s Zen 4 processors with 3D V-Cache come with a locked core multiplier meaning traditional frequency overclocking is largely off the table. The same applies to the 7600X3D where the processor tops out around its factory-rated 4.7 GHz boost clock in most scenarios. Instead of pushing raw frequencies, AMD recommends optimization through Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2) and Curve Optimizer. Applying a negative Curve Optimizer offset allows the CPU to operate at lower voltages, thereby reducing temperatures, and helping the chip sustain higher boost clocks more consistently under load.

The 250K Plus offers a far more granular overclocking experience thanks to its fully unlocked multiplier and frequency headroom. Based on Intel’s Arrow Lake architecture, the chip offers the latest overclocking features including the ability to tune the CPU on a per-core basis along with fine tuning voltage and power limits. The 250K Plus also allows tweaking of the NGU (ring/cache) and D2D (die-to-die) multipliers. These uncore adjustments can be beneficial when paired with high-speed DDR5 memory overclocking.

Speaking of which, memory tuning is another strong point for the platform, with official support for DDR5-7200 and additional headroom available through manual overclocking. Users can carry out most tuning either directly through the motherboard BIOS or via Intel’s Extreme Tuning Utility (XTU), which provides real-time monitoring and adjustment tools within Windows.

⭐Winner: Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus

The 250K Plus is a clear winner when it comes to overclocking and tuning features. Intel offers far more room to experiment with core frequencies combined with Intel’s XTU support and broader manual controls, which makes the 250K Plus a far more appealing option for enthusiasts and overclockers. The locked multiplier and onboard 3D V-Cache on the 7600X3D restricts traditional overclocking, leaving users to rely solely on PBO for incremental gains.

Power Consumption and Efficiency: Intel Core Ultra 250K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D

The two chips differ vastly in terms of power consumption and efficiency, thus, it is important to evaluate how they behave in real-world usage. With a modest 65W TDP and an 88W PPT limit, the 7600X3D is rated to draw considerably less power compared to Intel’s much higher 125W base power and 159W turbo boost. While the higher limit allows the Intel chip to deliver stronger multithreaded performance, it also comes at the cost of significantly higher power consumption across every workload.

Starting with low-power states, the 7600X3D consumes 25W while idling compared to 30W on the 250K Plus, giving AMD a 20% advantage in idle power consumption. The gap widens further during active idle workloads, where the 7600X3D draws 28W versus 37W on Intel’s chip, which is roughly 32% lower power usage.

Under heavy computational workloads, Intel’s high-performance approach becomes immediately evident. In the y-cruncher multithreaded test with AVX, the 250K Plus pulls a massive 179W compared to just 73W on the 7600X3D which is roughly 145% higher power consumption. Notably, the Ryzen 5 7600X supports AVX-512 instructions while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus does not.

The same trend appears in Linpack, where Intel draws 146W while AMD remains at only 65W, giving the Ryzen chip a substantial efficiency advantage. Even in single-threaded AVX workloads, where overall power requirements are much lower, the 7600X3D still consumes 39W compared to 49W on the Intel processor.

In Cinebench 2024 multi-core render test, the 7600X3D averages 74W while the 250K Plus reaches 171W, which is a massive 131% higher power draw by the Intel chip. Blender workloads also show a similar pattern, with the Intel chip consuming between 104% and 119% more power depending on the scene.

Video encoding workloads also showcase the difference in power between the two chips. In Handbrake x265 10-bit encoding, the 250K Plus consumes 159W compared to just 70W on the 7600X3D, which is about 127% more efficient. Similar trends appear in VP9, x264, and SVT-AV1 workloads, where the 250K Plus consistently draws between 90% to 132% more power than the 7600X3D.

In Linpack efficiency testing, the 7600X3D achieves 10.1 GFLOPs per watt-hour compared to 8.2 on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, giving AMD roughly a 23% advantage in computational efficiency. Cinebench 2024 watts-per-point results are much closer, with the AMD chip holding a slim 1.8% lead. Handbrake x265 efficiency also narrows the gap considerably, though AMD still maintains the better overall balance between performance and power consumption.

We have also included the scatter plots to get a better understanding of efficiency. These charts basically compare performance against total task energy, with the bottom-right corner representing higher performance with lower power consumption.

In the Linpack power efficiency scatter plot, the 250K Plus sits farther to the right representing a massive lead in raw compute performance. However, the Intel chip also lands slightly lower on the chart. The 7600X3D consumes relatively little power, but it also trails well behind in compute-heavy workloads.

The difference becomes more balanced in the HandBrake x265 efficiency chart where the 250K Plus again pushes much farther to the right with noticeably higher encoding throughput. But it also sits slightly higher than the Ryzen 5 7600X3D, meaning it requires more total energy to complete the workload. Meanwhile, the AMD chip lands lower on the chart with lower energy usage, although its encoding performance remains considerably behind Intel’s offering.

In the Blender Classroom scatter plot, the 250K Plus has a far more performance-oriented position with substantially higher samples per minute, but it also consumes more energy in the process. The 7600X3D remains much lower on the power scale while delivering significantly lower rendering throughput.

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D

The Ryzen 5 7600X3D wins the power consumption and efficiency round. While the 250K Plus delivers substantially higher productivity performance, it requires dramatically more power to do so. AMD’s X3D processor consistently maintains lower power draw across idle, gaming, and heavy productivity workloads while still delivering respectable overall performance, making it the more efficient option for most users.

Pricing: Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D

Intel’s Core Ultra 5 250K Plus launched at an aggressive MSRP of $199 and is currently available from various retailers for around $200–$220. As for the Ryzen 5 7600X3D, AMD originally launched the CPU as a Micro Center exclusive almost two years ago at a recommended price of $299.99. Since then the CPU has seen a drop in price and can now also be purchased from Amazon for around $230.

This essentially puts both chips in the same price bracket, with Intel holding a slight edge in upfront cost. That said, the real-world value of either processor goes beyond just the CPU price, as the total platform cost varies depending on the rest of the components. Motherboard compatibility, memory pricing, and even cooling requirements can vastly affect the entire budget.

The 250K Plus is compatible with the LGA 1851 socket, meaning you’ll need an Intel 800-series motherboard. Since it is an unlocked chip, a Z890 motherboard is recommended to take advantage of features like CPU overclocking, higher PCIe bandwidth, and high-end I/O connectivity. Prices typically start around $150–$160, with premium models going beyond $250. For gamers and mainstream users, a B860 motherboard should be sufficient, as it supports memory overclocking along with adequate PCIe bandwidth, though no CPU overclocking. These boards are currently available around $130-$140.

As for the 7600X3D, it uses AMD’s AM5 socket, meaning both 600-series and 800-series motherboards are compatible, though the former may require a BIOS update. While both generations support overclocking, the 7600X3D cannot be manually overclocked as it is a locked chip. For most users, a B-series motherboard like B650 or newer B850 is a good choice, with prices typically starting around $150–$170, offering a good balance of features and affordability. If you’re looking for more premium features such as better I/O, stronger VRMs, and PCIe Gen 5 across more lanes, X-series boards like X670 or X870 start at roughly $180–$200, with high-end models going significantly higher.

As for cooling requirements, the 7600X3D is not a toasty CPU thanks to its lower power draw. A quality air-cooler ($30-$80) or even an entry-level 240mm AIO should suffice. As for the 250K Plus, it draws significantly higher power, but it surprisingly had lower average temperatures during gaming workloads. If you are planning to just use your system for gaming, a reliable air-cooler should do the trick, although it is recommended to go for a more robust solution if you plan on pushing the limits of the 250K Plus with heavy productivity workloads.

Both platforms rely on DDR5 RAM and pricing is a major factor at the moment. Thanks to ongoing demands from AI and data centers, pricing for consumer-grade memory has been at an all-time high. A typical 32GB (2x16GB) DDR5 kit is currently available for around $300 to $400, with even entry-level options rarely dropping below $300 in many cases. This effectively cancels out any meaningful price advantage for either of the two CPUs.

Another crucial factor to consider is that the AM5 platform will be supported for a longer period when compared to Intel’s LGA 1851. AMD has confirmed that it will continue with the platform up until 2027. There has been no such commitment from Intel yet, which essentially means that Arrow Lake Refresh is going to be the last generation supported by the current-gen Intel 800 series (LGA 1851) motherboards.

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D

Although the 250K Plus holds a minor advantage in upfront CPU pricing, the 7600X3D offers a stronger long-term value thanks to the AM5 platform’s extended support. The Ryzen chip also benefits from lower power draw and easier cooling requirements, helping reduce overall system costs. Intel’s platform remains attractive for users interested in overclocking and productivity-focused builds, but for most mainstream gamers, the 7600X3D ends up being the more practical overall investment.

Bottom Line: Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D

After six rounds, the comparison ends in a 3-3 tie between the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D. Intel offers overall a stronger spec-sheet and leads when it comes to productivity performance, and overclocking flexibility. While AMD secures wins in gaming performance, power efficiency, and overall platform value. Both processors prove to be highly competitive options in the mid-range desktop segment and achieve their strengths in different ways.

The Ryzen 5 7600X3D is clearly the better choice for gamers thanks to its 3D V-Cache offering a larger cache pool which allows the chip to deliver higher average FPS and respectable efficiency. While it isn’t as powerful in productivity workloads, it is overall more power efficient. Additionally, the AM5 platform offers better long-term value thanks to AMD’s continued socket support, making the 7600X3D a safer investment for users planning future upgrades.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus primarily stands out as a strong productivity-focused CPU. It offers significantly higher core count and stronger multi-threaded performance making it far better suited for heavy multitasking workloads. The Intel chip also offers a more robust overclocking experience with unlocked multipliers, granular tuning controls, and support for faster DDR5 memory. In the end, neither CPU is objectively better and the right choice simply comes down to whether your priority is maximum gaming performance or superior all-round productivity.

⭐ Winner: Tie

If you had to choose one, we'd recommend the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus to most people. Assuming you have mixed usage, the 250K Plus comes close to the gaming prowess of the Ryzen 5 7600X3D while offering far superior application performance. However, if your sole focus is gaming, the Ryzen 5 7600X3D tops the charts in this price bracket, and it gives you a solid foundation for a platform you can upgrade in the future.

Check Out More CPU Faceoffs

• Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
• Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 7 9700X
• AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
• Intel Core i7-14700K vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265K
• AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 vs Ryzen 9 9950X3D

Intel has announced a multi-year strategic partnership with F1's legendary McLaren Racing team. The chipmaker is now the Official Compute Partner of the McLaren Mastercard Formula 1 Team, Arrow McLaren IndyCar Team, and McLaren F1 Sim Racing Team, according to a press release today. Interestingly, this announcement again pits Intel against its PC chip industry nemesis, AMD. The Red Team has already been working in partnership with the Mercedes-AMG Petronas Formula One Team for six years.

Intel's PR blurb says F1 racing is "one of the world’s most technologically demanding sports." Thus, Intel engineers will be tasked with delivering advanced computing for AI and high-performance architectures that are required to keep McLaren competitive.

The new agreement means that systems using Intel Xeon and Core Ultra chips will be leveraged to support McLaren's quest for the ultimate performance on the track. Specific calculations that F1 engineers spend their days optimizing for include "performance-critical workloads, including computational fluid dynamics, aerodynamic analysis, vehicle-dynamics simulation, [and] race strategy analytics." As well as real-time data, F1 support computers are used to sift through massive volumes of post-race data. Computers used to optimize F1 racing cars are also increasingly using AI tools, plus low-latency edge computing solutions, and diverse software platforms.

"Formula 1 racing and IndyCar are some of the ultimate proving grounds for high-performance computing. Intel is proud to be McLaren Racing’s compute partner, and to be part of a team that thrives on precision, speed, and innovation," said Lip-Bu Tan, Intel CEO. "Together, Intel and McLaren will push the boundaries of what’s possible, transforming data into competitive advantage at every turn."

A statement by Zak Brown, CEO, McLaren Racing, confirmed Intel hardware had already been an important part of the F1 team's tech ecosystem. It will be interesting to see if the new, closer relationship will produce noticeable results on the circuits around the globe, burning rubber at speeds pushing beyond 230 mph.

As we mentioned in the intro, AMD has already been working closely with a major F1 team for years. The firm has a page dedicated to how AMD Epyc and Threadripper processors are a competitive edge for the Mercedes-AMG PETRONAS Formula One team. Similar to Intel's announcement today, the AMD/Mercedes partnership uses advanced compute for "aerodynamic simulation and faster data analysis."

AMD's partnership with Mercedes-AMG was forged back in 2020, which might explain why there's no mention of artificial intelligence in the linked PR blurb, yet.

Intel has today launched its Core Series 3 mobile processors, confirming the official branding for the silicon tracked under the Wildcat Lake codename since late 2024.

The lineup covers six consumer SKUs plus an edge-only variant, all fabbed on Intel 18A, with more than 70 laptop designs scheduled from Acer, Asus, Dell, HP, Lenovo, MSI, Samsung, and others through the rest of 2026. Intel is positioning this family as the value-segment counterpart to Panther Lake, which shipped as Core Ultra Series 3 following its debut at CES in January.

The silicon uses a two-tile package with a compute die and an external platform controller tile. The compute die carries up to two Cougar Cove P-cores, four Darkmont low-power E-cores, an NPU 5 block, and an Xe3 integrated GPU with up to two Xe-cores, while the platform controller tile delivers six PCIe 4.0 lanes, up to two Thunderbolt 4 ports, Intel Wi-Fi 7 (R2), and Bluetooth Core 6.0.

Memory tops out at LPDDR5x-7467 or DDR5-6400 in a single-channel configuration, with a 4MB memory-side cache. That sits well short of Panther Lake's 4P+8E+4LPE top configuration with 12 Xe3 cores and dual-channel memory.

Intel describes the family as "hybrid AI-ready" with up to 40 platform TOPS. The NPU alone hits 17 TOPS on the Core 7 360 and 350, below the 40 TOPS Microsoft requires on the NPU for Copilot+ PC certification. Intel's performance figures compare the Core 7 360 to its previous-generation Core 7 150U on Raptor Lake Refresh, claiming up to 64% lower processor power during 4K YouTube streaming, up to 2.1 times faster productivity, and up to 2.7 times GPU AI performance.

For battery life, Intel claims the Core 7 350 inside a reference platform can achieve up to 9.6 hours of battery life in a Zoom call with AI effects, up to 12.5 hours in office apps as measured by Procyon, and up to 18.5 hours of video playback via Netflix streaming.

All seven parts share a 6MB L3 cache, single-channel memory support, and 15W/35W base/turbo power envelopes. The Core 3 304 ships with one P-core fused off, matching the pre-release sample that appeared last month. The Edge-only Core 5 305 eliminates the NPU entirely and reduces the GPU to a single Xe3 core.

Among the first shipping designs are the Ace Aspire Go 14/15/16, HP Omnibook 5 14-inch, and the MSI Modern 14S/16S. Asus Vivobook 14/15/17 systems are expected to follow at some point this quarter, with ExpertBook B3/B5/P3 models in the second half of the year. Lenovo (ThinkBook, ThinkPad E, IdeaPad Slim 3i/5i, IdeaCentre AIO 3i), Dell, Samsung's Galaxy Book 6, and Positivo are “coming soon,” per Intel.

Josh Newman, general manager and vice president of Consumer PC at Intel's Client Computing Group, said the family targets students, small businesses, and edge deployments on a typical five-year upgrade cycle, with Intel citing up to 47% higher single-thread performance versus a 2020-era Core i7-1185G7.

Whether you're a student submitting homework, at work typing away at documents, spreadsheets, or presentations, or you're just someone who wants to access resources online and connect with family and friends, you want a laptop with the components and features you'll need to get the job done. That means a great screen, a comfortable keyboard, and long battery life (and nice design doesn't hurt, either!).

The laptop space is more competitive than ever. Windows machines come from many companies using silicon from three major CPU vendors: Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm. Apple, meanwhile, has a range of powerful and portable systems based on its own Apple Silicon.

In 2026, Intel's most recent chips are its Intel Core Ultra (Series 3) chips, code-named Panther Lake, while AMD launched its "Gorgon Point" Ryzen AI processors at CES. At Computex, Nvidia announced that its RTX Spark chips will launch in laptops from Microsoft, Dell, Lenovo, HP, and more starting in the fall, taking on Qualcomm in the Windows on Arm space. Earlier this year, Qualcomm released its Snapdragon X2 Elite Xtreme, Elite, and Plus chips.

On Macs, Apple's top chips are the M5 series, including the M5 Pro and M5 Max, which can be found in the MacBook Pro and MacBook Air lineup.

Best Laptops You Can Buy Today

The Best Laptop (and Mac) overall

The MacBook Air has been a go-to laptop recommendation for quite some time, thanks to strong performance, a fanless design, excellent built quality, and long-lasting battery life. With the version of the chip with M5, you get the benefits of years of hardware revisions since the Air's last redesign with M2, including a minimum 16GB of RAM and a 12-megapixel webcam.

The M5 chip in the MacBook Air showed off excellent single and multi-core performance. In fact, it;s closest rival was the same chip in the MacBook Pro, which gets a boost because of an active fan.

That being said, the system can throttle under heavy workloads like rendering. But for most people's typical tasks, including writing, editing, making spreadsheets, editing photos, listening to music, programming, and general multitasking, you'll have a very powerful machine.

Apple has boosted the base MacBook Air's price to $1,099, but it now starts with 512GB of memory. Given the price of components these days, the laptop is still a great value. If you want a Mac but don't want to spend that much for it, you could take a step down to the entry-level MacBook Neo, starting at $599, as long as you're willing to sacrifice on power, memory, ports, and a backlit keyboard.

Read: MacBook Air (M5) review

Best Windows laptop

The Dell XPS 14 is back, and while you might expect its performance or design to be the headlining feature, it's the battery life that wows. With its base 1920 x 1200 LCD display, which has a variable refresh rate that goes all the way down to 1 Hz, it lasted 20 hours and 41 minutes on our battery test.

That's not to say the battery life is all there is to like about this laptop. The 3-pound chassis is sleek, and Dell added a function row back to the keyboard, making it way easier to use over the touch bar of yesteryear.

If you're OK with 12 hours of charge, more expensive models with a tandem OLED display have way better colors and more powerful Arc B390 integrated graphics.

That being said, both of them have a low-travel keyboard without space between the keys, which definitely tripped up my fingers, so you'll need time to get your muscle memory going. And the starting price, at $1,600, is a lot to ask but is unfortunately common as the memory crisis rages on.

Read: Dell XPS 14 (2026) review

Best ultralight laptop

Some of the best laptops are barely noticeable in your bag. The Lenovo Yoga Slim 7i Aura Edition, at 2.15 pounds is extremely light.

Still, despite the weight, you get plenty of other benefits. The speakers are surprisingly good for a laptop of this size. Perhaps most impressively, the system ran for 16 hours and 38 minutes on our battery test, outlasting many of the laptops we bit against it by multiple hours.

The system also offers a lovely display. The POLED touchscreen measured 476 nits of brightness while falling in similar gamut ranges as other OLED notebooks that weren't as luminous.

There are some downsides. There are limited ports outside of Thunderbolt 4/USB-C, including a lack of a headphone jack. And CPU performance fell behind some competitors, like Apple's M5 MacBook Air and a thicker AMD-based 2-in-1 from HP.Still, the laptop impressed for its airiness and multimedia strengths. And as tested with 32GB at $1,519, it's not a crazy price as the costs of many laptops skyrocket during an ongoing component shortage.

Read: Lenovo Yoga Slim 7i Aura Edition review

Another great Windows clamshell

We can argue about how much the AI PC is really any sort of revolution, but there are still some strong ultraportables coming out. The HP OmniBook Ultra puts the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 in a sleek chassis with strong productivity performance.

HP is offering up decent battery life here, running for 12 hours and 52 minutes on our battery test. That's not the best, but all things considered including the high-resolution display, it's not bad. It's also nice to see Thunderbolt 4 ports on an AMD system, which is exceedingly rare.

The experience is knocked down a bit by a significant amount of bloatware, but if you're looking for a strong AMD laptop, the HP OmniBook Ultra is a strong competitor if you don't mind doing some uninstalling.

Read: HP OmniBook Ultra review

The best budget laptop

If you're looking for an affordable laptop, Apple does it best these days. The MacBook Neo starts at $599 ($499 with an education discount), but you rarely feel like you're not getting enough – unlike most Windows laptops in this price range. The Neo has a premium, all-metal chassis, a bright, vivid screen, and a custom mechanical trackpad that lets you click anywhere. And yes, you get all of macOS running on what was formerly an iPhone chip.

The quality of the 13-inch chassis and screen are key here. You're not getting something plastic. You're not getting something low-resolution, and you're not getting something dim. You also get a great webcam for this price range, and the system stays remarkably cool. There are some niceties you sacrifice, however. Apple has gone without a backlit keyboard. And the two USB ports aren't labeled, so you'll have to remember which is the faster 10 Gbps USB 3 port (the back one) for backup drives and monitors, lest you end up with an error message.

I suspect that most people with light workloads — especially students and people using home computers doing a lot of work in the browser — won't have too much trouble with the 8GB of RAM. That being said, 16GB systems can be found in the Windows world for a bit more money, though you'll need to hunt for sales.

But if a premium laptop experience (including great build quality and a high-res screen) are important to you, Apple delivers that better than any Windows machine priced close to the Neo’s $599 starting price.

Read: MacBook Neo review

The Best Laptop for work

As far as Windows-based business laptops go, the ThinkPad X1 Carbon has been the platonic ideal for a long time. With the Gen 14 Aura Edition, our only real nitpick was how darn expensive it is.

A mix of a sub-1kg (just 2.15 pounds) design, a gorgeous OLED screen, and a responsive keyboard make this excellent to use day to day, including during a commute. Those three factors (fitting it in a bag, looking at it, and typing on it) really seal the deal.

But the ThinkPad also includes a sharp, 1440p webcam in its notch and truly solid audio, making it great for video conferencing at home or wherever you go.

You still get a TrackPoint, and while we reviewed the system with a mechanical touchpad, there's also a haptic option on customized versions.

When we tested the system, it was over $2,200 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 355, 32GB of RAM, and 512 GB of storage. That's pricey, but maybe your workplace can get a better deal.

Read: Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen 14 Aura Edition review

The best repairable laptop

If you're looking for a repairable laptop that still feels like a premium device, the Framework Laptop 13 Pro is your best option. It takes Framework's previous designs and puts them in a sturdier, more attractive shell, along with a bright, high-resolution touch screen, a haptic touchpad, and Intel's high-performance Panther Lake processors. This is what the Framework Laptop should have been all along.

Of course, that does assume you can get the system. As of this writing, the X9 388H version we tested is backordered, and the prices for the LPCAMM2 RAM on Intel models have steadily increased.

Framework has a track record of releasing parts and mainboards, so we're confident you'll be able to update your laptop like prior models. The only question is if you'll be able to get one and, if you're able to get one, if you'll be able to afford it.

Read: Framework Laptop 13 Pro review

A more powerful Mac laptop

The MacBook Air is a great starting point, but if you want an air-cooled processor and a few more features, the base MacBook Pro adds a few niceties. The 14-inch MacBook Pro starts with an M5 processor, has three Thunderbolt ports (including one on the right side), and a beautiful micro LED display.

For those willing to spend an extra $150, there's a nano-texture display option that is completely worth it if you ever use your laptop outside. The matte display looks excellent, and was great on desks near windows.

If you need the most power possible, we also reviewed the MacBook Pro with an M5 Max, including a 40-core GPU, a mix of Apple's latest performance and super cores, and a blazing fast SSD.

Both the 14-inch and 16-inch laptops offer great speakers and beautiful displays, but you will have to pay quite a bit for any storage or memory upgrades you want, and you won't be able to make changes later.

Read: MacBook Pro (14-inch, M5) review
Read: MacBook Pro (14-inch, M5 Max) review

The Best Gaming laptop

Razer Blade 18 offers some of the strongest gaming performance we've seen in a laptop, but also features excellent design, comfortable features, and the latest connection standards. At $5,199.99 as tested, it sure should be good. It tops our list of the best gaming laptops.

The major highlight is the dual-mode display, which has two options: 3840 x 2400 at 240 Hz or 1920 x 1200 at 440 Hz. Those two choices (which you can switch between in Razer Synapse) is enough to showcase both intensive, graphics-driven games at high settings and esports where frames are more important than resolution and detail.

The laptop, packed with an Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX and Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop GPU in our review configuration, outperformed the field in our gaming tests, especially at the lower resolution.Razer is one of the few laptop makers using Thunderbolt 5 ports (we've also seen them from MSI and Apple), so this system is ready to go if you're using advanced peripherals or the fastest external storage drives.

Perhaps the biggest downside is that the Blade's dual 2TB storage drives use PCIe 4.0 rather than 5.0. You won’t notice this in games or mainstream productivity, but if you want PCIe 5.0 speed for future proofing or 8K video editing, the Titan may still be the way to go. The Blade 18 does support PCIe 5.0 drives, if you want to upgrade to speedier storage in the future.

Read: Razer Blade 18 review

Other Laptops We Tested

💻 Asus Zenbook A16

The Zenbook A16 has Qualcomm's powerful Snapdragon X2 Elite Extreme processor, including 48GB of RAM on the package. While the chip is fast, the laptop, while lightweight, didn't meet our expectations. While light, it flexed and didn't feel premium; battery life was lesser than competitors; and while emulation is better than it used to be, there are still some compatibility issues with Windows on Arm for power users.

Read: Asus Zenbook A16 review

💻 Samsung Galaxy Book6 Ultra

Samsung's Galaxy Book6 Ultra is a powerful system for creatives, thanks in part to the RTX 5070 GPU in the version we tested. The OLED screen is beautiful and you get an nice design (albeit one that is quite similar to Macs), but this laptop is pricey, and you get a shallow keyboard.

Read: Samsung Galaxy Book6 Ultra review

Quick Laptop Shopping Tips 

Finding Discounts on the Best Laptops

Whether you're shopping for one of the best laptops, or just something that is good enough for your needs, you may find savings by checking out our lists of the latest Dell coupon codes, HP coupon codes, Lenovo coupon codes, Best Buy promo codes or Newegg promo codes.

Casual hardware enthusiasts and folks on the periphery of the hobby may have heard some buzz around Intel's new Arrow Lake Refresh processors, and now the iGPU-less Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is available for a cool $199, while the full-featured Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is $215. Look, it's not just that the Core Ultra 200S "Plus" processors are that much better than the original recipe (and they are better); rather, it's simply that Arrow Lake was never that bad to begin with. Now that Intel has cut pricing on its processors, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and Core Ultra 5 250K Plus are looking downright attractive, especially now that the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is down to $199 at Newegg.

Technically, that's still over the MSR—err, sorry, Recommended Customer Price of $184, but it's the closest any of the new parts have come to their RCP. The buzz around Intel's latest CPUs has been positive enough that demand may have outstripped supply, and so the high-end Core Ultra 7 270K Plus (which is faster than the Core Ultra 9 285K in a lot of situations) is already out of stock in some stores, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is going for some $20 over its suggested price.

• Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is $199.99
• Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is $215

So it goes that we have the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, which is identical to the 250K, just without the integrated GPU. That's a very slight bummer even for those intending to use powerful discrete gaming GPUs, as it can be handy for troubleshooting (or allowing you to continue using your PC when that big GPU melts its power connector and needs an RMA), but ultimately, the integrated GPU is just inactive silicon in most PC gamers' rigs.

AMD does hold the gaming crown in some price bands, but the truth is, there are plenty of PC gamers out there who are all-around power users who make use of their PCs for a lot more than playing video games. You can buy a Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus for $199 and enjoy the multitasking horsepower of eighteen CPU cores cranking at up to 5.3 GHz, or for the same price, you can pick up a Ryzen 5 9600X, with a whopping six cores. The comparison isn't even salient for multi-core workloads and multi-tasking usage, and in fact, the Intel chip usually wins in gaming against the 9600X anyway.

That's right: AMD's Ryzen processors with 3D V-Cache are dominant in gaming workloads, and the Core Ultra 200S Plus series doesn't change that. However, 3D V-Cache processors basically start at $350 with the Ryzen 7 7800X3D outside of some Micro Center doorbusters. That's a brilliant processor, don't get me wrong, and the gaming performance is still a full step ahead of the Intel parts. If you're not gaming in a low resolution (like 1080p) with something like a GeForce RTX 4080 or Radeon RX 9070 XT, though, you'll likely never notice the difference anyway—certainly not the way you'll notice 65% faster render times in HandBrake or 57% faster code compiles.

There are a few caveats with the newer chips; you'll want the fastest RAM you can afford to throw at the chip (ideally 7200 MT/s or better, although anything will work), and you'll also need to install Intel's Platform Performance Package to get the Application Performance Optimization and Binary Optimization Tool. Fortunately, Intel has made that latter part a one-step process with an all-in-one package instead of requiring users to separately install packages for DTT, PTT, APO, and various other three-letter acronyms.

We can't imagine the new Arrow Lake Refresh processors are any less expensive for Intel to fabricate and package, so the company is likely taking a bath on its margins to move these chips. That doesn't matter much to the end-users, though; thanks to Intel's generosity (or desperation), you can pick up a seriously potent 18-core processor for just two-hundred bucks. It's a whole different world from just a few years ago, when Intel's top-end CPU for $539 had a measly eight cores while AMD was shipping 16-core behemoths.

One of the most noticeable upgrades Intel made to its latest Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and 250K Plus CPUs was the introduction of its Binary Optimization Tool that manipulates instructions at the hardware level to boost IPC. The tool is highly beneficial for squeezing extra performance out of the Arrow Lake architecture, but it has led to concerns over benchmarking accuracy and consistency with these chips. John Poole from Geekbench posted a warning to its users that Intel's latest tool can't be trusted at this time, and there's no way to identify when the tool is enabled or disabled during a benchmark run.

Pool revealed that Intel does not have any public documentation on the techniques the Binary Optimization Tool (or iBOT) uses to optimize code, making it difficult to determine how effective iBOT's techniques are when applied to a variety of different applications. Furthermore, this problem makes it impossible for Primate Labs (the makers of Geekbench) and its userbase to understand how iBOT is boosting performance compared to benchmarks that run without it. According to Poole, Geekbench 6 workload scores on the chips increase by up to 40% with iBOT enabled, with overall scores improving by up to 8%. "Since the tool modifies the benchmark, and it is unclear to both Primate Labs and the general public how these changes occur," he warned.

To deal with this problem, Geekbench will provide a warning on all Geekbench benchmark listings featuring iBOT-supported chips with the following description: “This benchmark result may be invalid due to binary modification tools that can run on this system.”

Unfortunately, the Geekbench developers don't have any other choice but to treat iBOT in this manner. Benchmarking consistency from run to run is very important for both users and the teams that create benchmarking apps, such as Geekbench 6, and losing this capability removes a benchmarking application's usefulness and credibility.

Thankfully, Intel is aware of these discrepancies; Intel told Jake Roach, one of Tom's Hardware's editors and main CPU reviewer, that it is cautious about rolling out the feature and wants to avoid any claims of playing dirty tricks to look better on benchmarks. Currently, iBOT is supported only in a handful of PC games, with the exception being Geekbench 6.3. Intel is using iBOT in Geekbench 6.3 as a proof of concept for how iBOT could potentially perform in non-gaming workloads. For instance, in our review of the 270K Plus, we tested iBOT in Geekbench 6.3 and saw performance improve by around 10% compared to the 265K.

The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and Core Ultra 5 250K Plus debuted this week as potentially Intel's last hurrah for the LGA 1851 platform before Nova Lake arrives later this year. In our reviews of both chips, we found both make significant improvements on the lackluster Core Ultra 200S series parts that preceded them. Pricing for both SKUs is substantially cheaper than their non-Plus counterparts, while providing noticeably superior multithreading performance thanks to the addition of four extra E cores.

Last year, we first heard about the Core Ultra 3 205, a low-end OEM chip from the Arrow Lake family, part of the Core Ultra 200S lineup, but it was never released. We even got a full review of a non-retail unit of the CPU before it was ever announced. Fast forward to 2026, and it has finally reappeared online, listed at a French retailer called PC21. It's priced at 158 Euros after tax, or roughly $182, but there are no units in stock.

To be clear, the Core Ultra 3 205 has been listed before — at the same vendor, funnily enough — but that was over 7 months ago, and it hasn't popped up since. Current speculation points toward it being an OEM-exclusive part, reserved for system integrators, but we haven't seen any prebuilt with it either. In fact, Intel has not launched any Core Ultra 3-branded desktop SKU for Arrow Lake at all.

Specs-wise, we're looking at an eight-core chip (4P + 4E) that can boost up to 4.9 GHz, and has 2 Xe cores for integrated graphics. Rated at just 57W, the Core Ultra 3 205 actually surpassed its previous-gen Core i5 counterpart and scored 30% higher in multi-core benchmarks compared to the Core i3-14100. It has been poised to become the new entry-level champ ever since it entered the rumor mill.

The PC21 listing confirms some of these specs, though it could just be getting them from leaks in the first place, like 15 MB of L2 cache and the aforementioned 4.9 GHz boost clocks. The part number used for this SKU is AT8076806773, which Intel used in its own documentation more than a year ago. The processor was also found at a German retailer in December of 2025, listed for 148 Euros without tax.

Since Intel has already updated its Arrow Lake family with the Core Ultra 200K Plus refresh, it's unlikely that a formal launch for this Core Ultra 3 SKU is in the cards anymore. It's unfortunate that Intel never officially listed this CPU or gave it a proper, boxed release because it's clearly a great value for money. The listing on PC21 mentions it as a "tray" chip, which pretty much confirms it's not intended for a mainstream release, but at least we know it's out there.

Following the announcement for Core Ultra 200S Plus, Intel has just launched its Arrow Lake refresh for laptops as well, in the form of Core Ultra 200HX Plus. It includes only two SKUs for now — Core Ultra 290HX Plus and Core Ultra 270HX Plus — but several manufacturers have already announced new laptops with these chips. The silicon itself is an iterative upgrade, so let's go over all the details.

Unlike the recently launched Panther Lake, these CPUs are purely aimed at performance, going into laptops with discrete graphics and pushing the envelope for mobile capability. The "Plus" designation now represents enthusiasts in Intel's nomenclature. These chips are based on the same Arrow Lake architecture as the existing Core Ultra 200HX CPUs, just more refined to get the most out of the silicon.

First up, we have the Core Ultra 290HX Plus (mobile equivalent to the 290K Plus), which will succeed the Core Ultra 285HX. Intel says the 290HX Plus is around 8% faster than the 285HX across games at 1080p; higher resolutions will show even less of a difference. Compared to the four-year-old i9-12900HX, though, the new chip is 62% more performant on average in games and up to 87% faster in productivity tasks.

Specs-wise, we're looking at a higher-binned version of the 285HX: 24 cores (8 P + 16E) and 24 threads running at a maximum clock speed of 5.5 GHz. The chipmaker claims a 900 MHz increase in die-to-die interconnect frequency, which means the cores should be able to communicate more quickly with the memory controller, reducing latency in demanding scenarios.

Intel didn't talk much about the Core Ultra 270HX Plus; we don't know how much better it is than its predecessor, but we can still infer from the specs. It's supposed to replace the Core Ultra 265HX, but slots below the Core Ultra 275HX. It has 20 cores (8P + 12E) and 20 threads, and its P-cores can boost up to 5.3 GHz. That's the same as the 265HX, but the E-core boost is set to 4.7 GHz instead of 4.6 GHz.

One special feature both SKUs are getting is the new Binary Optimization Tool, which should boost performance in some games. It uses Intel’s compiler and profiling IP to streamline library and executable performance. Marketing speak aside, it's a software-side refinement that reorders the compiled binary, so the CPU doesn't have to wait, resulting in fewer wasted cycles. It's rearranging the binary (compiled data) so that the CPU's front-end is fed continuously.

Laptops featuring these new processors have been announced side-by-side today by various vendors, including Dell Alienware, which we've covered separately. Other notable models include Asus' new TUF lineup, with the TUF Gaming A16 and F16, which feature OLED displays for the first time. Only the F16 is powered by the Core Ultra 290HX, and there are no 270HX configs at the moment.

Similarly, Asus' ROG brand has unveiled new Strix G16 and G18 laptops, both equipped with the 290HX Plus; the G18 houses a 240 Hz Mini-LED display. The company also teased the Scar 18 coming soon with RTX 5090 graphics. Moreover, Acer's new Predator Helios Neo series comes equipped with the 290HX Plus on the Neo 16S AI and Neo 16 AI, both featuring an OLED screen and up to an Nvidia RTX 5080 laptop GPU.

The full list of laptops from additional OEMs, such as Razer, MSI, Lenovo, HP, and more, is available on Intel's website. Availability for these new devices coincides with the release of the Core Ultra 200HX chips, which starts today. Some models are set to launch later, such as Acer's lineup scheduled for July 2026 in North America. We weren't able to spot any active listings for laptops with these CPUs, however.

AMD once again reset the bar for gaming CPUs by introducing the Ryzen 7 9850X3D. It replaces the Ryzen 7 9800X3D as AMD’s fastest gaming CPU, thanks to its 3D V-cache design and slight increase in boost clock speeds. For readers interested specifically in how big that jump is, we recently did an in-depth comparison between the 9850X3D and the 9800X3D.

While Intel still doesn’t have a solid chip that can compete with AMD’s 3D V-cache tech, the Core i9-14900K is still a formidable and a powerful offering from Team Blue. Notably, this CPU takes a different path as it leans heavily on clock speeds and a large core count to excel in productivity workloads moreso than gaming.

In this face-off, we break down how these two processors compare across gaming, productivity, power efficiency, and cooling demands to help you decide which one makes the most sense for your build.

Features and Specifications: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs Intel Core i9-14900K

Looking at the specifications, it is quite evident that there is a stark difference in architecture between these two chips, particularly when it comes to the core and thread count. The Ryzen 7 9850X3D is more or less identical to the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, with a slightly higher boost clock. Built on AMD’s Zen 5 architecture, it comes with 8 cores, 16 threads with base clock speeds of 4.7 GHz and boost clock speeds of up to 5.6 GHz.

The Core i9-14900K is built using Intel’s proprietary Intel 7 10nm process and offers 24 cores in a hybrid layout with 8-Performance cores or P-cores and 16-Efficiency cores or E-cores. The CPU supports 32 threads via Intel’s Hyper-Threading technology, with the E-cores running at a 2.4 GHz base clock and boosting up to 4.4 GHz, while the P-cores operate at 3.2 GHz base and can reach up to an impressive 6 GHz on boost.

The Ryzen 7 9850X3D comes with a total of 104MB onboard cache, of which 96MB is vertically stacked 3D V-Cache, which helps the chip dominate in gaming benchmarks. The Core i9-14900K offers a more conservative 36MB of L3 cache along with 32MB of L2 cache, which isn’t terrible, but not enough to compete with AMD.

In terms of memory support, both CPUs meet modern DDR5 memory standards and can be paired with up to 192GB of dual-channel DDR5-5600 RAM. The Intel Core i9-14900K additionally supports DDR4-3200 memory when paired with the right motherboard. This makes the Intel chip more versatile, particularly considering today’s skyrocketing memory prices.

The Ryzen 7 9850X3D excels at efficiency. With a rated TDP of 120W and PPT (Package Power Tracking) of 162W, the chip draws less power when compared to Intel. The Core i9-14900K comes with a rated TDP of 125W that can go up to 253W or even higher under extreme workload conditions. This also means that the Intel chip runs hotter and requires a more powerful cooling solution.

AMD launched the Ryzen 7 9850X3D with an MSRP of $499, making it $20-$50 more expensive than the 9800X3D. Meanwhile, Intel introduced the Core i9-14900K with a significantly higher $589 MSRP, though current market pricing has brought it down to the $450–$500 range, making the two chips more competitive than what their launch prices suggest.

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen7 9850X3D

The Core i9-14900K is clearly more powerful on paper in terms of core and thread count, and it offers greater platform flexibility through DDR4 support and a more mature ecosystem. However, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D’s massive 3D V-Cache is something the Intel chip can’t consistently overcome. When combined with significantly better power efficiency and lower real-world cooling demands, AMD’s chip feels more focused and refined.

Gaming Benchmarks and Performance: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs Intel Core i9-14900K

Taking over the title for best desktop CPU for gaming from its predecessor, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is specifically made for gamers who care about squeezing every last drop of performance. But how does the Core i9-14900K fare against it?

To understand the differences, we tested both CPUs with a range of modern games at 1080p. The reason for choosing 1080p resolution was to see how the CPUs scaled without running into a GPU bottleneck. Graphics duties were handled by the mighty Nvidia RTX 5090.

Based on our 15-game 1080p geomean, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D sits comfortably at the top of the chart, outperforming the Core i9-14900K by an average margin of 23.9%. That is a considerable lead over the Intel chip which managed 171.1 FPS on average, which stands as the fastest Intel desktop CPU for gaming, and a more suitable choice over the current-gen Core Ultra 9 285K flagship.

Looking at some individual game results, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D offers a huge advantage in Baldur’s Gate 3 with a 50.28% uplift at 209.8 FPS compared to the 139.6 FPS on the Core i9-14900K. The trend continues with AMD’s latest chip easily pulling ahead of Intel with a 49.48% uplift in F1 2024, 48.43% in Final Fantasy XIV, 42.38% in Far Cry 6, and 30.99% in Hitman 3. The gap tends to decrease in games like DOOM: The Dark Ages (5.78%), Starfield (11.74%), and The Last of Us Part 1 (14.43%), with Monster Hunter Wilds being the only game in our tests where the Core i9-14900K had an edge of 7.17% over the Ryzen 7 9850X3D.

Looking at the 1% lows, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D maintains a 21.49% lead on average over the Core i9-14900K. The only real outlier was A Plague Tale: Requiem where the Intel chip managed to beat AMD with a 3.88% lead.

Despite having boost clock speeds of up to 6 GHz on its P-cores, the Core i9-14900K was only able to maintain an average of 4.87 GHz in our gaming benchmarks. Since the Ryzen 7 9850X3D has a more thermally sound design, it is able to hold higher clock speeds on average at 5.45 GHz. Another reason for its higher average boost clock speeds is the lower memory access latency, which helps the chip sustain stronger performance over time, particularly in games.

A major benefit of choosing the AMD chip over Intel is its efficiency. It delivers 2 FPS/W, compared to 1.28 FPS/W for Intel. During gaming, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D averaged 106.1W of power consumption, which is roughly 20.7% more efficient than its competitor. By comparison, the more power-hungry Core i9-14900K consumed an average of 133.9W in our testing.

At their current market price, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D falls behind in value-per-dollar with 0.42 FPS/$ as opposed to 0.37 FPS/$ for the Core i9-14900K. With that said, this metric is only relevant when solely looking at the cost of the CPU.

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D

The Ryzen 7 9850X3D offers impressive gaming performance, draws less power, and delivers superior efficiency compared to the Core i9-14900K. While it is slightly more expensive and offers less compelling value per dollar on paper, the real-world price gap is relatively minor and doesn’t necessarily outweigh its advantages.

Productivity Benchmarks and Performance: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs Intel Core i9-14900K

The Core i9-14900K dominates in our set of productivity benchmarks thanks to its higher core and thread count along with peak clock speeds. If we take a look at the multi-threaded performance ranking geomean, the gap between the two CPUs is quite evident. The Core i9-14900K delivered a geomean score of 543, which places it near the top of the stack and reflects its advantage in heavily threaded workloads. On the other hand, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D trails significantly with a score of 364, which is roughly 49% lower than Intel.

Intel consistently extends its lead across individual productivity benchmarks. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core i9-14900K scores 38,131 points which is about 63% higher than the Ryzen 7 9850X3D’s 23,362. Cinebench 2024 tells a similar story, with Intel scoring 2,210 compared to AMD’s 1,393, a gap of roughly 58%. In POV-Ray multi-core, we saw the Core i9-14900K achieve 13,262 PPS, a 73% advantage over the Ryzen 7 9850X3D which was able to deliver 7,632 PPS.

In SVT-HEVC video encoding, the Core i9-14900K delivers 159 FPS, comfortably ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D at 104 FPS. That’s a difference of 52.88% which essentially highlights Intel’s strength in sustained encoding tasks that can scale across its multiple cores and threads. The trend continues in Blender’s Classroom render, where the Core i9-14900K processes 110 samples per minute, compared to 73 samples per minute for the Ryzen 7 9850X3D.

AMD gains some ground in single threaded productivity but overall Intel tends to stay ahead. As per our single-threaded performance ranking geomean, the Core i9-14900K offers a 2.7% advantage with 266 points compared to the Ryzen 7 9850X3D at 259 points. In Cinebench 2024 single-core benchmark, the Ryzen chip pulls slightly ahead by 3.6%, but falls back down as Intel leads by 6.6% in Cinebench R23 single core. Both chips tend to remain neck to neck in other single threaded tests including audio encoding, lossless image encoding, and image decoding.

⭐ Winner: Intel Core i9-14900K

Based on our testing, both CPUs perform similarly in single-threaded workloads, but Intel stays firmly ahead in multi-core workloads. AMD’s 3D V-Cache delivers its biggest gains in gaming, rather than in the broad range of productivity tasks that we have tested. For workloads that lean heavily on multi-threaded performance, the Core i9-14900K is simply the faster processor, leading in most productivity benchmarks. When you factor in its lower price, it also ends up being the better value for users who care more about productivity than gaming.

Overclocking: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs Intel Core i9-14900K

The Intel Core i9-14900K is rated to be one of the best CPUs for overclocking as it is fully unlocked and offers multiplier support along with voltage tuning controls. It also supports manual frequency adjustments and per-core ratio controls, allowing enthusiasts to push individual performance cores. .

Using the Intel Extreme Tuning Utility (XTU) software, one can tinker with various parameters directly from Windows, rather than entering the BIOS. Additionally, it supports AI Assist where Intel has trained a neural network on hundreds of processors to suggest optimized CPU overclock settings. With its ease of use, you shouldn't expect big performance gains out of AI Assist in XTU.

The Ryzen 7 9850X3D is also fully unlocked and can be overclocked as it supports multiplier changes, manual frequency adjustments, and voltage controls. You can also use PBO 2 (Precision Boost Overdrive 2) where the CPU dynamically handles boost clocks depending on the available power and temperature. PBO 2 also includes a Curve Optimizer for voltage tuning and the Curve Shaper feature.

AMD’s X3D CPUs offer impressive performance in gaming thanks to 3D V-Cache, but that same design tends to limit the benefits of memory overclocking. From our testing, we have found that memory tuning is not entirely beneficial as it leads to less than 2% gains, which additionally leaves little headroom for enthusiasts who enjoy manual tuning.

⭐ Winner: Intel Core i9-14900K

Intel offers better manual overclocking potential and higher frequency headroom, making it the preferred choice for enthusiasts who care about maximum clock speeds. In addition, Intel offers a more mature overclocking ecosystem with comprehensive software tools, extensive voltage controls, and proven ability to achieve extreme frequencies. AMD’s Ryzen processors often provide better out-of-the-box performance with automated boosting, making manual overclocking less necessary, though still possible on chips like the Ryzen 7 9850X3D.

Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs Intel Core i9-14900K

Both chips seem to be closely matched with the Ryzen 7 9850X3D having a 120W TDP and Intel holding a rated 125W TDP (253W for PL2). Our gaming benchmarks already established Team Red’s latest offering as the more power efficient chip between the two, but now let’s take a deeper look at peak power draw, idle power consumption, and the cooling requirements needed to keep each processor operating at its best under extended heavy workload conditions.

At idle, the Core i9-14900K consumed 25W which is around 13.5% more power than the Ryzen 7 9850X3D (22W) in our testing. The narrative completely flips though, as the AMD chip consumes 32W in our active idle power consumption test, while the Core i9-14900K pretty much offered the same result at 26W. This noticeable gap of roughly 23% is due to Intel’s hybrid architecture that can handle low-power states better when compared to the Ryzen 7 9850X3D.

Demanding workloads reveal a consistent efficiency gap between the two processors. In y-cruncher multi-threaded AVX workloads, the Intel chip pulls 309W versus 173W on the AMD side which is around a 79% increase in power draw. Even in the single-threaded AVX test, the Core i9 consumes more than double the power at 90W compared to 44W on the Ryzen 7 9850X3D. Linpack follows the same pattern, with the Core i9-14900K consuming roughly 70% more power.

The Ryzen 7 9850X3D draws 155W in Cinebench 2024 multi-core benchmark while the Core i9-14900K hit 309W, which is almost 100% higher power consumption. We also tested the chips with Blender Monster, Classroom, and Junkshop scenes, where we noticed Intel’s power draw anywhere between 83% to just over 101% higher than the AMD chip.

The power draw delta between Intel and AMD grows even bigger in video encoding workloads. HandBrake tests using modern codecs like x265, VP9, and x264 resulted in the Core i9-14900K drawing around 105–114% more power, while the SVT-AV1 encode peaked at nearly 119% higher consumption. These results point to significantly higher power delivery demands for sustained creative workloads as well as a strong cooling solution requirement for the Intel platform.

To further understand efficiency between the two chips, the estimated task energy scatterplots give us a clearer picture. The Ryzen 7 9850X3D delivers a much better balance of performance and energy use than the Core i9-14900K in the Handbrake x265 power efficiency test. While Intel’s flagship is capable of reaching higher raw FPS, it does so with a large increase in task energy, placing it far higher on the power axis. In contrast, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D consumes significantly less energy per encode, making it clearly more efficient for sustained video encoding workloads.

Similarly, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D sits in a far more efficient position in the Blender Classroom power efficiency test, delivering strong samples-per-minute output with low task energy. The Core i9-14900K offers high rendering performance but at the cost of substantially higher power consumption, requiring far more energy to complete the same workload.

With high power draw ranging between 300W to 320W under sustained loads, the Core i9-14900K demands robust and heavy cooling solutions. To avoid thermal throttling and keep noise levels in check, you'll need to pair the chip with a top CPU cooler.

By comparison, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D should be far easier to cool, with peak power draw landing between 160W and 180W across our benchmarks. This allows it to run comfortably on a solid dual-tower air cooler or a 240mm or 280mm AIO, which lowers overall system cost and complexity while also keeping noise under control.

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D

Although Intel maintains a small edge at idle and in light workloads, AMD’s substantially lower power draw under load makes a far bigger difference in real-world use. The Ryzen 7 9850X3D not only keeps power and efficiency demands in check, it should also run cooler and quieter, thus making it the more practical option for most systems.

Pricing: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs Intel Core i9-14900K

Pricing between the two chips appears closer than expected. The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D carries an MSRP of $499, while the Intel Core i9-14900K is now commonly available for around $450. The gap in price doesn’t really tell the full story as the actual difference can only be justified once you factor in the entire platform.

The LGA 1700 platform has served a total of three generations for Intel which has resulted in broader availability and competitive pricing. A reliable Z-series board for the 14900K generally falls between $130 and $250, while premium Z790 models can climb past $400–$500. Lower-tier B660 boards starting at $100 are also an option, though pairing one with an unlocked CPU doesn't make much sense. Intel blocks CPU core overclocking on its B-series chipsets.

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D requires an AM5 motherboard, where budget options include B650 motherboards that start around the $100 mark, but well-built options typically sell around $150–$200. High-end X-series boards begin around $200 and can easily exceed $500 depending on the feature set and power delivery capabilities. Unlike Intel, you can overclock AMD CPUs on B-series motherboards.

Memory is an important component that further separates the two platforms. Both CPUs support DDR5 memory, but Intel retains compatibility with DDR4 provided you have a compatible motherboard. Given today's market conditions where memory prices are on the higher side, Intel has a slight advantage. While DDR5 is the go to choice for maximizing performance on either platform, the ability to reuse or buy cheaper DDR4 can potentially reduce total system cost when choosing the Core i9-14900K.

Cooling is another area where the platform cost gets a shakeup. With a 120W TDP and peak power draw in the 160–180W range, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is comparatively easy chip to manage. A quality air cooler or a mid-range 240mm AIO should be sufficient, with air cooling options priced anywhere between $40 to $100 and a good liquid cooler available between $60–$150.

The Core i9-14900K runs hot, and thus, requires a robust thermal solution. The chip comes with a TDP of 253W but has the capability of drawing power that can exceed 350W under heavy workloads. High-end air coolers typically start around $80–$130, while 280mm to 360mm AIO liquid coolers are often available in the $100–$200 range.

⭐ Winner: Intel Core i9-14900K

When taken as a complete build, the Intel platform ends up being slightly cheaper, especially if you are not opting for DDR5 memory. Between the lower CPU price, broader motherboard options, and lower DDR4 memory costs, total savings can potentially go anywhere from $100 to $200, or more, compared to an equivalent AM5 setup with the Ryzen 7 9850X3D.

Bottom Line: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs Intel Core i9-14900K

After six tightly contested rounds, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D and the Core i9-14900K end up in tie at 3–3. That alone says a lot about Intel's former flagship as it continues to hold its ground against AMD’s latest X3D flagship chip, proving that it is far from being obsolete.

Since the Core i9-14900K has higher clock speeds and far more cores and threads at its disposal, it easily manages to pull ahead in demanding productivity tasks. Additionally it offers greater flexibility for enthusiasts who enjoy overclocking, and the support for older DDR4 memory can potentially reduce the total cost of your build.

On the other hand, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D with its 3D V-Cache shines in gaming workloads giving it a clear edge in many titles, while the TSMC-based chiplet design keeps power consumption relatively low. The end result is a system that runs cooler and quieter, making it particularly appealing for gamers who care about thermals and noise just as much as frame rates.

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D

If we take everything into account, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D emerges as the more balanced and future-proof choice. Its gaming leadership, superior efficiency, and easier cooling give it the edge in real-world usage, making it the better overall CPU for the majority of enthusiasts even if the scoreboard itself says otherwise.

Check Out More CPU Faceoffs

• AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
• Intel Core i7-14700K vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265K
• AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D vs AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D
• Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265K

A charming video from a Turkish wedding reveals a delighted bride and groom being showered with opulent gifts, as per tradition. However, this happy couple isn’t seen being weighed down in gold and jewelry, as if typically the case, instead they are collecting the ultimate riches of the PC tech world – GPUs, RAM, and processors.

The video clip embedded below (expand the tweet to see it) begins with the groom being presented with an MSI Suprim GeForce RTX 5090 in white. The multi-thousand-dollar GPU is hung around the groom's neck using red ribbons. Next up, the same wedding guest presents the bride with a quad-channel DDR5 memory kit, again lashed together using red ribbons. If the guy who presented these tech delights wasn’t the ‘best man’, he is now.

Another wedding guest steps to the fore and adds an Intel Core Ultra Unlocked processor to the groom’s gifts. The subtitles read “right now it’s a full computer set” (machine translation). So, we guess bulky items like the case, motherboard, and PSU weren’t suitable for hanging upon the newlyweds.

Something old
Something GPU
Something borrowed
And something from team Blue

My step-sister married into a Turkish family. It was probably nearly 20 years ago, but I don’t remember her getting any computer tech gifts. The wedding did involve a lot of gold and AK47s, though.

We’ve recently reported on the value of both DRAM and NAND ICs rising above gold, by weight. Such reports may have inspired the Turkish wedding guests in their lovely video clip.

However, we note that while gold never tarnishes, diamonds are forever, cash is king, and happiness is a warm AK47 - an RTX 5090 is probably only going to be serviceable for about a decade, if it doesn’t self-combust in the interim. Meanwhile, a large number of economists and tech watchers expect there to be a sharp correction in the AI-stoked RAM and NAND markets, in due course.

We don’t want to be Debbie Downers about this wedding, though, and wish the bride and groom a long, blissful, and lag-free marriage.

Minisforum let me go hands-on with its CES 2026 Innovation Award-winning Mini Workstation, so to get a grasp of what the diminutive new Minisforum MS-02 Ultra could offer, I decided to see if it could replace my aging but capable desktop PC.

This is a true David vs Goliath battle, at least in terms of physical presence. The sub-5-liter MS-02 Ultra battles with my much larger desktop system packed into a 55-liter Fractal Define S PC case. However, the result of the clash wasn’t as clear-cut as I expected, making me wonder what kind of PC I should be using daily in 2026.

Before we get into a specifications table, where you can see exactly how these two systems compare feature-by-feature, it is important to highlight the physical differences. The MS-02 Ultra is an incredible 11 times smaller than my Define S-desktop system. Obviously, such a small size means there are sacrifices to be made in terms of expandability, configurability, thermals, and noise. But those limitations are counterweighted by the benefits of the device being much physically smaller. Dare I say, the Minisforum is kind of portable, and even cute, which is not something I could say about the Define S PC.

The table below makes clear the specs of the Minisforum MS-02 Ultra workstation against those of the system it will have to battle on my desk.

CPU and GPU showdown

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX should be much more capable than the i5-14400F that I bought at Amazon for $115 last year. It tempts with the advantages of its modern Intel architecture, higher clock boost, and easily outguns my Raptor Lake Refresh chip on core count. Moreover, the new platform brings quite a lot of modern niceties. Particularly welcome, from my perspective, are the trio of really fast USB4 (including 2x USB4 v2) ports, all with DisplayPort capabilities.

A distinct advantage I expected in moving to the MS-02 Ultra was from the increased core count using Intel’s more modern architecture. Indeed, CPU-heavy benchmarks would show the new chip could convincingly eclipse the old mid-range Core i5-14400F in both single- and multicore workloads, given sufficient power supply and cooling capacity. But, we'll see how that translates to ‘Mark’s world’ of computing in the benchmarks section, below.

I’ll stress again that a brief check of the specs, ahead of any actual comparison testing, may suggest the little Minisforum would win hands-down in CPU-focused processing tasks, but the best consumer-grade GPU I could get to fit inside its sub-5-liter chassis would be crushed by the triple-fan behemoth in my ATX desktop. Indeed, that is sort of what happened. There are nuances, though, especially as I don’t really play any AAA or eSports PC games that launched in the 2020s, or dabble in local AI.

The MS-02 Ultra runs using the integrated graphics on the Core Ultra 9 285HX by. default. However, there’s a PCIe5.0 x16 slot, and incredibly, there’s room to install a two-slot low profile (LP) graphics card. This, plus the spare 8-pin connector from the built-in 350W PSU, allowed me to install a Gigabyte RTX 5060 OC LP GPU.

Nvidia’s RTX 5060 seemed to be the best graphics card choice for me, as a generalist/hobbyist PC user, though I’ve seen other early adopters of the MS-02 Ultra install cards like the Intel Arc Pro B50 (16GB), Nvidia RTX Pro 4000 Blackwell SFF (24GB), and the RTX 4000 SFF Ada (20GB). These offer far more VRAM but can cost a lot more, too. But thanks to this mini workstation allowing for GPU upgrades, perhaps the RTX 6060 or RTX 7060 will arrive one day with more than 8GB of VRAM on board, and in a low-profile form factor. Or maybe AMD will make a performant LP form factor card in the meantime.

More on specs

I chose my Fractal Define S-housed desktop's motherboard as it was one of the few B760 chipset boards with a USB-C 20 Gbps port as standard at the price point. So, getting three times more USB-C ports, with two of them supporting up to 80 Gbps as standard, on the compact MS-02 Ultra was a welcome platform boost. I’m sure there is potential here for some very useful docking or even eGPU use-cases.

I have a pair of Crucial X10 Pro 4TB devices for keeping games, TV, and movie libraries portable. My testing confirmed the USB4 v2 ports on the front work at full USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 (20 Gbps) speeds with the X10 Pro. Some USB4 controllers surprisingly don’t support Gen 2x2 and would fall back to 10 Gbps mode. My X10 Pros run about a third of the speed of the built-in M.2 SSD provided by Minisforum, but I feel they are good for external, highly portable units.

An extra two 25 GbE network ports and two of the available M.2 SSD slots are provided by a pre-installed low-profile card in the MS-02 Ultra’s PCIe 4.0 x16 slot. However, I chose to replace that with a cheap USB Type-A 3.0 card with four ports, as I really like to have lots of USB ports. My old desktop used a USB adaptor for Wi-Fi 6 and didn’t have Bluetooth. The MS-02 has built-in Intel BE200 Wi-Fi 7 and BT 5.4 card.

There are three PCIe slots in the MS-02 Ultra, but adding the GPU takes up the room where two single-slot add-in-cards would otherwise fit. That compares poorly with my Define S desktop, which has five slots. With a bulky GPU fitted in that ATX system, it was still possible to add another three single-slot PCIe cards. Again, I have one installed in there, bristling with extra USB ports.

Preparing for my personal benchmark battle

The most demanding things thrown at my PC are video editing and games like The Division 2 and Far Cry 5. The Cyberpunk 2077 benchmark is just there for an added reference point, (I bought it, but I’ve not actually got around to playing it yet.) The same goes for Shadow of the Tomb Raider. I also like playing in Borderlands GOTY Enhanced Edition, Command & Conquer Generals, and Amiga Forever – but those are so old and lightweight they weren’t worth testing for this performance comparison.

Most of the time, my computer will be used for little more than multiscreen word processing and browsing, communicating with work colleagues, and a touch of ancient Photoshop and Illustrator dabbling. These help me prepare artwork for here on Tom’s Hardware, some YouTube stuff, as well as laser cutting and engraving. Also, Photoshop has recently been replaced by the Affinity suite.

So, without further ado, let’s get into those benchmarks, which unashamedly revolve around my personal general-purpose computer use, with a few gaming classics thrown in. I’ve also included a ‘tweener’ system, where my large desktop was fitted with the incongruously tiny RTX 5060 LP card.

Minisforum MS-02 Ultra productivity performance

The comparison table above doesn’t offer much in the way of surprises. The MS-02 Ultra with Intel’s Core Ultra 9 285HX does exceedingly well in CPU-intensive tests, particularly those that take advantage of the abundance of available threads. We see the 285HX is a star performer in Cinebench R23, with single-thread scores similar to desktop processors like the Core i9-14900K and Ryzen 9 9950X. For multicore, you are also good to compare with the Ryzen 9 7950X3D and i9‑14900F, but the unlocked i9‑14900K starts to pull ahead convincingly.

I also think the 7-Zip (de)compression benchmark shows the MS-02 mini workstation in a good light. Handbrake 4K transcoding wasn’t much better compared with my old 14400F, though. Meanwhile, PassMark Performance Test, a mix of CPU, graphics, memory, and disk tests, showed some worthwhile performance benefits from the Minisforum – when the RTX 5060 was installed.

Minisforum MS-02 Ultra gaming performance

It is almost moot to highlight that the Define S desktop with Radeon RX 9070 would dominate in 3D games and 3D benchmarks. Nevertheless, there were some interesting results showing that the Ultra 9 285HX / RTX 5060 didn’t always beat the i5-14400F / RTX 5060 due to titles simply being ‘GPU-limited.’ An interesting outlier was the crazy-town USA-set Far Cry 5, where Ubisoft’s Dunia Engine 2 (a modified CryEngine) seemed to prefer the desktop Raptor Lake Refresh under the hood. All the games were tested in 1440p, with no upscaling or frame-gen tech applied.

Minisforum MS-02 Ultra power consumption and noise

Now we move into an area of both strength and weakness for the Minisforum MS-02 Ultra. In my benchmarks table, above, I also included power and noise readings. Starting with the good news, the MS-02 requires less power while idling and doing light tasks – like writing this. It also uses about 120W less when gaming, and all the titles I enjoy play smoothly enough on the RTX 5060 system at high to ultra settings at 1440p without the use of any scaling or frame gen tech.

Some bad news for the mini workstation is that it is more audible when idling and under load, in my experience. Initially, I measured both systems from about arm’s length distance. My Define S desktop uses large Noctua fans and sits under the desk, and in the comparison results, you see that even using the tiny RTX 5060 didn’t increase the noticeable system noise – it is hard to be 100% confident about the 1dBA difference observed.

Having the MS-02 Ultra at arm's length from my seated position, but on the desk top, the noise level was quite high at 48 dBA under load, as per the above chart. However, sitting it under the desk, where the big DIY desktop PC was previously located, reduced the max noise level to 41 dBA. But it's a far smaller system, and when positioned in the space vacated by the Define S, the Minisforum front panel moves beyond arm's reach under the desk. It is necessary to bend quite low from the chair to reach the power button and front I/O, which isn't convenient. That's why I decided to keep it on the desk.

I also note that the Minisforum BIOS has various fan modes (quiet, balanced, and performance) and manual tweaking of the trio of system fans. I ran it at ‘Balanced,’ so there’s probably some tuning that could be done for better noise performance.

Bottom line

In some many ways, the Minisforum MS-02 Ultra held its own against my old home-built Goliath.. The pint-sized challenger does everything I need, and some more. There are clear advantages to be had in CPU-heavy workloads. In GPU-heavy tasks and gaming, there’s clearly enough juice for my particular needs today. If you think about the future, then unlike many other mini PCs, this one can get upgraded with a faster next-generation low-profile graphics card (and other compact PCIe cards) if and when they arrive at an affordable price.

I’ll continue to work on configuring the fans, with an eye on processor and memory temperatures, as the louder fans are the one aspect of the MS-02 Ultra that pokes me in the ribs. It may also be repositioned further back on the desk or under it to scale back its audible presence. The fan noise isn’t high-pitched, and I sometimes forget it, but less is more.

We must also talk about the price of the Minisforum MS-02 Ultra mini workstation. As of the this writing, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX model with 2x 25 GbE PCIe SFP+ NIC, 32GB DDR5, plus a 1TB M.2 PCIe4x4 SSD, and Windows 11 Pro is priced at $1,583.90 from Amazon.com. You can also go barebone (no RAM, SSD, or OS) for $1,229.90 using a $300 discount coupon on the page, which could be a great option if you have a spare DDR5 SO-DIMM, M.2 SSD, and can source your own OS. As with all PCs at this time, prices are very volatile.

The Gigabyte GeForce RTX 5060 OC LP 8G I bought to go in this system's PCIe ​5.0 x16 slot is currently $359 at Newegg. This was a necessary extra to indulge in the type and quality of gaming fun that I am used to.

Thus, for the Minisforum MS-02 Ultra 32GB/1TB with RTX 5060 LP graphics card installed, as tested, today's total price would be $1,942.90. Things have gotten a little pricier since I began my tests in early January, but that's the way the PC market is going.

We could talk about the comparison between the MS-02 Ultra build/cost and a desktop, with the latter offering much better value and expandability or upgradeability. However, getting something this performant yet compact, with this level of I/O spec and expandability, is going to be impossible with off-the-shelf parts. In this way, and especially for those with a use for the 2x 25 GbE PCIe SFP+ NIC, this mini workstation is a uniquely attractive package.

While Panther Lake was the focus of Intel's CES 2026 presence, the company will also refresh its current-gen Arrow Lake lineup for both desktops and laptops soon. We've already seen these "Plus" processors in a few leaks, including a Geekbench listing, but a mobile SKU has been spotted in PassMark for the first time ever: the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, succeeding the outgoing Core Ultra 9 285HX.

The Arrow Lake refresh scored 5,009 points in the single-core test, the highest for any x86 CPU on the site, and within the margin of error of the desktop Core Ultra 9 285K and Core Ultra 7 270K Plus. It seems to be the first x86 mobile chip to break the 5,000 points barrier as well, since the next-in-line 285HX only managed 4,635 points, making the 290HX Plus 7.5% faster than its predecessor.

Moving on to the multi-core score, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus netted 66,203 points, just a smidge below the full-fat Core Ultra 9 285K, along with AMD's Ryzen 9 9950X3D. That score already places it at number three in the desktop consumer x86 CPU hierarchy, but it's at the very top when it comes to mobile-only numbers. It beats even AMD's Ryzen 9 9955HX3D by 6.2% while Intel's own Core Ultra 9 285HX is 12.8% behind.

These results are from a single test, meaning the sample size is just one, so take all these performance estimates with a grain of salt. The PassMark listing also shows that the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus boosted to 5.45 GHz, and leaker x86deadandback speculated that the laptop used for testing was running DDR5-5600 SO-DIMM memory from Samsung.

As for the chip's specs, we know it's a routine refresh that maintains much of the same silicon. You're looking at a 24-core/24-thread config, with 8 performance cores and 16 efficiency cores. The clock speeds are unknown, but it could be around 5.4-5.5 GHz for the 290HX Plus based on this PassMark run. Current rumors indicate that the Arrow Lake refresh will launch in March or April of this year.

According to the company, Intel is set to share details of its Panther Lake lineup of mobile processors next week. Now, leaks are starting to seep out ahead of the reportedly imminent announcements. A few weeks ago, the name "Core Ultra X" started popping up in the rumor mill with reliable tipsters reporting on a potential new branding that Intel would adopt for Panther Lake. Up until now, we didn't have any concrete info on this, but new leaks from one of the most trusted leakers in the business, the oddly-named Golden Pig Upgrade, have just filled us in on the purported details.

Intel's Xe3 graphics IP will debut on Panther Lake with every SKU featuring integrated graphics. The models with the highest-spec'd iGPUs are what will reportedly be referred to as Core Ultra X. The "X" designation allegedly represents 12 Xe3 GPU cores, a major uplift from the 8 maximum Xe2-based cores we had on Lunar Lake. But that's the thing — Panther Lake is not a Lunar Lake successor because that featured on-package memory; Panther Lake supports externally-mounted RAM. That's probably why the model numbering on Panther Lake is also shifted around.

Speaking of which, Golden Pig Upgrade lists four SKUs: three with the Core Ultra X designation and one without. Apparently, only Core Ultra X9 and X7 are getting the full-fat 12 Xe3 GPU cores, while the Core Ultra 5 midrange offering will have, at best, 10 Xe3 cores. So, overall, Core Ultra X means 12 Xe3 cores; Core Ultra 3x8 means at least 10 Xe3 cores; and Core Ultra 3x6 means less than 10 Xe3 cores. In general, Panther Lake will introduce more CPU cores across the board as well, alongside improved iGPUs, as explained below.

Now, all that being said, there's a slight twist in this narrative. A new leak that surfaced from Chiphell just a couple of hours later actually detailed the entire lineup, consisting of 12 SKUs that will launch this year. From that leak, it appears that there is, in fact, a Core Ultra 5 SKU as well, but it still has those 10 Xe3 Cores we mentioned earlier. This may mean that the "X" designation isn't strictly exclusive to the 12-core club, but this is a leak after all, so we'll have to wait and see. Given the discrepancy in core configs below, perhaps "X" just broadly refers to a high GPU core count.

What's more interesting, however, is how the SKUs are actually named. Instead of the Core Ultra X7 or X9, the "X" appears to precede the model number itself — Core Ultra 9 X388H, for instance. There's rumored information on a lot more models, so we'll leave you with a table (at the end) that goes over it all. It doesn't really matter how Intel names these chips; at the end of the day, we're in for a seemingly powerful upgrade regardless. Especially when it comes to integrated graphics performance, a big generational jump (Xe2-LGP to Xe3-LPG), combined with the increased core count, should give us exciting results.

Panther Lake is expected to be fabricated on the company's homegrown 18A process, and will feature an expanded LP-E island, alongside the typical P-Cores (Cougar Cove) and E-Cores (Darkmont). Intel is looking for a spiritual successor to Lunar Lake, hoping to achieve similar efficiency (battery life) but without the niche novelty tied to that generation. The fact that they're reportedly combining the naming schemes of Core Ultra 200V and Core Ultra 200H (Arrow Lake-H) could be evidence of that, and it should be enough to keep the crowd fed till the real upgrade, Nova Lake, shows up next year.

The Core Ultra 3 205 represents the lower end of Intel’s current generation of Arrow Lake desktop processors. While the CPU is not officially available for purchase yet, an early review by Korean reviewer Bulls Lab gives us an idea about its capabilities. The entry-level CPU features a hybrid architecture with four P-cores that can boost up to 4.9 GHz and four E-cores capable of going up to 4.4 GHz, giving the chip competitive clock speeds for an entry-level processor.

The reviewer tested the Core Ultra 3 205 by pairing it with a budget H810 motherboard along with 32GB of DDR5 memory. By the looks of it, the processor is capable of delivering good performance for everyday computing and can handle multiple browser tabs, as well as 8K YouTube videos at low CPU usage. In terms of power draw, the chip can draw up to 65W, and it is recommended to use a third-party CPU cooler instead of the stock Intel heatsink for better thermal performance.

Intel has joined forces with EA to gather conscripts for its Battlefield 6 bundle. If you want to enlist, your basic training will consist of just one crucial mission: to purchase a qualifying Intel Core or Intel Arc product from one of over 200 system and retail partners around the world. There’s also a deadline to consider. Intel’s BF6 bundle will only be available from August 25 to September 7 this year.

Battlefield 6 has had more than its fair share of headlines in recent weeks, not all good. However, if you are in the market for a new CPU or GPU from Intel’s stables and are a fan of the Battlefield franchise, this bundle deal might seem rather sweet. Remember, the standard edition of the game is currently selling for $69.99, so getting it effectively free is a worthy lure.

Intel’s latest bundle announcement is made under the auspices of the Intel Gamer Days 2025 event. The chipmaker says that for two weeks, Gamer Days will “feature new deals, sweepstakes, and Intel-powered experiences for gamers to enjoy.” We can’t be sure precisely what else, beyond this bundle, might be included.

Nosing deeper into the details shared by Intel, we see signs that free software subscriptions for Canvid (3 months), Vegas Pro 365 (1 month), and XSplit Premium Suite (1 month) will be offered. Intel also hints at sweepstakes and giveaways, which could feature new Intel-powered gaming laptops and desktop systems.

Qualifying PCs and components

For qualifying PC processors, we see the T&Cs mention a very large number of CPUs, and they mix parts from 13^th and 14^th gen Core, plus the Core Ultra 100 and 200 series. A number of mobile chips are listed, too.

The qualifying Intel Arc product list is much shorter, naming just the Intel Arc A550M, A580, A730M, A750, A770, A770M, B570, and B580 Graphics.

We are not yet certain of the U.S. retail partners where you will be able to grab qualifying Intel-powered gear and/or components. At the time of writing, some of the promotional page links are spawning Korean pages, for some reason.

Intel gear to keep an eye on for bundle-icious deals

AMD continued to win CPU market share from Intel on the desktop PC and server fronts in the first half of the year, but its position on the mobile CPU front got significantly weaker than it was in the second half of last year. However, when it comes to revenue share, AMD has every reason to celebrate as its Q2 2025 results demonstrate spectacular gains compared to the same period a year before, according to recently released data by Mercury Research that was provided by AMD.

Consumer CPUs: AMD gains in the high-end, Intel maintains unit share lead

While Intel faces all kinds of troubles, it still sells by far more consumer (client) CPUs than everyone else in the industry. In Q2 2025, Intel saw a slight rebound in consumer CPU unit share, gaining around 0.2% sequentially, but this small uptick was overshadowed by a notable 2.8% decline compared to Q2 2024, indicating that Intel continues to face long-term competitive pressure in the consumer PC space.

AMD’s total consumer CPU unit share stood at 23.9% in the second quarter of 2025, down 0.2% quarter-over-quarter (QoQ), but still up 2.8% year-over-year (YoY). However, when compared to Q3 and Q4 2024, it looks like AMD's unit share has been stagnating, or even getting lower.

However, AMD's total consumer CPU revenue share rose to 27.8% in Q2 2025, up 1.3% from Q1 and a whopping 9.8% increase compared to the same quarter a year ago, which suggests that AMD is not necessarily shipping more CPUs in volume but is selling more high-end or higher-margin products. By contrast, while Intel maintains its unit share at around 75%, sales of its higher-end processors are lower than usual as AMD gains in the high-end segments.

Desktop CPUs: AMD triumphs

While unit-wise Intel continues to outsell AMD in the desktop PC market, this is where AMD boasts spectacular gains. In Q2 2025, AMD’s desktop CPU unit share rose to 32.2%, a gain of 4.2% sequentially and a robust 9.2% YoY. For Intel, the Q2 2025 desktop CPU unit share stood at 67.8%, down both QoQ and YoY, which means that Intel now outsells AMD 2:1, down from 8:2 in 2023 and 9:1 in 2016 – 2018.

This marks one of AMD’s strongest year-over-year gains in recent years for desktops, reflecting the success of its latest Ryzen 9000-series processors and growing traction in both consumer and commercial systems. While Intel still maintains the majority of the desktop CPU market, these declines highlight a continuing shift toward AMD, particularly in the enthusiast and performance segments.

On the revenue side, AMD made even more dramatic gains. The company's desktop CPU revenue share climbed to 39.3%, an increase of 4.9% sequentially and an incredible 20.5% YoY. This shows that AMD is not only shipping more desktop processors but also selling higher-value models, likely driven by strong demand for its premium SKUs, such as Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 9, as well as Ryzen X3D models. Conversely, Intel's revenue share fell by roughly the same amount as its Core Ultra 200-series CPU for enthusiasts is not really popular.

Notebook CPUs: Intel starts to regain unit share

Intel maintained a strong lead in mobile PCs with a unit share of 79.4% in Q2 2025, which is up 1.9% from the previous quarter, but a drop of 0.3% from the same quarter a year ago. AMD's mobile CPU unit share came in at 20.6%, down 1.9% QoQ but still up 0.3% year-over-year. Given how competitive AMD's higher-end Ryzen AI processors for laptops are, we can only wonder how Intel manages to win market share from its small rival, but the numbers speak for themselves and show that AMD has lost market share for two consecutive quarters.

From a revenue perspective, AMD's mobile CPU revenue share came at 21.5% in Q2 2025, down 0.7% from Q1 but still up 3.9% YoY. This indicates that AMD is selling a higher proportion of mid-range to premium notebook processors compared to a year ago, even if unit volumes dipped. For Intel, the revenue share decline matches AMD's gain — meaning that despite holding the lion's share of units, Intel is losing some ground in higher-end segments of the mobile market, where AMD's offerings look more competitive.

Server CPUs: AMD is high-end champion, but unit share gains are stagnating

Intel retained the majority of server CPU shipments with a unit share of 72.7% in Q2 2025. 3.2% YoY, which highlights the company's long-term challenges in this segment. By contrast, AMD made a strong 3.6% year-over-year and 2.1% quarter-over-quarter unit share gain in the first quarter of 2025 due to the latest EPYC platform ramp. In the second quarter, the company's unit share reached 27.3%, which is a tiny 0.1% gain.

The steady rise in unit share reflects growing demand for EPYC processors, driven by performance, efficiency, and competitive total cost of ownership. Nonetheless, stagnation of AMD unit share gains in Q2 may indicate that Intel has managed to find the right balance of performance, efficiency, TCO, and price with its Xeon 6 offerings.

From a revenue standpoint, AMD's share climbed to 41% in Q2 2025, a substantial 1.5% increase QoQ and an even larger 7.2% gain YoY. This growth in revenue share suggests AMD is capturing a share of the higher-end server CPU market with its high core-count offerings. Equally, Intel's revenue share fell by the same amounts, highlighting that while it still outsells its rival 7:3, AMD is increasingly competitive in the most profitable segments of the server CPU market.

Summary

Edge computing specialist Aaeon has rolled out the tiny new PICO-MTU4-SEMI, which it claims to be the “world’s smallest Intel Core Ultra-powered Mini PC.” This Intel Core Ultra 5 Processor 125U-packing PC measures just 108 x 95 x 43mm (about 0.44 liters, 14.9 fl oz). Searching our archives for smaller Core Ultra PCs seems to support the compactness claims, with the Aaeon being noticeably smaller than the MSI Cubi NUC 1M that we previously featured, for example.

The Aaeon PICO-MTU4-SEMI design gets bonus points for being entirely passive; however, it must lose some for looking like something you’d tether to the back of an Acorn Electron. Readers are also likely to be uneasy regarding the port selection. However, the limited internal expansion options seem like an understandable constraint here.

Knowing that this is a device targeting installation within “industrial robots and AGVs while still providing a broad selection of interfaces for peripheral devices such as cameras and sensors,” provides some background to the port selection. Thus, the PICO-MTU4-SEMI bristles with the familiar DB9 style ports, common on such devices. These are mostly intended for legacy-friendly COM ports, facilitating RS-232/422/485 serial communication with various industrial devices and machinery. We see on this new Aaeon that one is also a GPIO, for further I/O control flexibility. All these 9-pin ports are tagged as ‘optional’ in Aaeon’s spec sheets.

Sticking to the topic of ports, around the other side of the device, you will find a meager pair of USB 3.2 Type-A ports, 2.5GbE and 1GbE LAN ports, a single display output in the shape of an HDMI 1.4 connector, and a DC-in jack. That isn’t a lot, but one assumes Aaeon must know its business audience.

Intel demoed working Panther Lake Core Ultra 300 silicon for laptops, its first chips based on its crucial 18A process node, here at Computex 2025 in Taipei, Taiwan. Unlike the first public demoes at CES 2025 that merely showed the chips powered on, Intel put Panther Lake its paces in real-time rendering and AI applications, showing that the silicon is healthy and on-track for retail availability in early 2026. Intel also shared more information about its performance and power consumtpion expectations for the new chips. 

As you can see in the image above, Intel also had a Panther Lake chip on display, enabling us to see how the CPU, GPU, I/O tile, and SoC tile are arranged on the package. These chips are thought to come with Cougar Cove P-cores and Darkmont E-cores (you can see the unconfirmed leaked specifications of some of the chip models here). 

Intel says the Panther Lake chips blend the power efficiency of Lunar Lake with the performance of Arrow Lake-H, noting that while the chips will be in production in the second half of 2025, presumably launched at CES, full retail availability will not come until early 2026. Intel did tease that the chips will come with the next-gen integrated graphics with XMX graphics, but aside from saying the iGPU performance will be closer to Lunar Lake than Arrow Lake, the company didn't elaborate. These iGPUs are thought to be based on the Xe3 architecture.

Intel ran its Panther Lake benchmarks on two Reference Validation Platforms (RVP) that you can see in the above album. These platforms are used to validate the design and emulate real-world conditions. Both RVPs were equipped with a heatsink and fan, so they were presumably operating without thermal constraints. 

Intel demoed one system running the newly-resurrected Clippy as a large language model to demonstrate that the chips are running AI workloads. The presenter used the system to write game code in Python code. Intel didn't share performance metrics from the benchmark. 

Intel also demoed a system running Da Vinci to edit and manipulate video using local AI processing to process the video, enabling fast manipulation of the video clip, such as changing backgrounds, clothing colors, and adding flying text to the clip. 

Intel also displayed a running developer kit that 300+ developers with ISVs are using to enable software support for the coming chips. Intel demoed the system being used for image editing with auto-coloring and upscaling features, powered, of course, by AI. As you can see in the album, the developer system is quite compact. Intel also had a host of laptops on display from its OEM partners. 

Intel's Panther Lake appears to be on track for its launch schedule, which bodes well for the company's immensely important 18A process node. Intel teased that the next steps are to release concrete speeds and feeds along with more information about the various chip models. We expect those to come trickling our over the next several months.