Researchers at ETH Zurich disclosed a software-only vulnerability in April that silently undermines AMD SEV-SNP confidential computing protections on AMD's EPYC platforms, giving a malicious cloud host full read and write access to supposedly protected virtual machine memory. The technique, dubbed “Fabricked,” exploits flaws in how the CPU's Infinity Fabric interconnect handles memory routing during boot — and can forge the cryptographic attestation reports tenants rely on to verify their environment hasn't been tampered with.

The researchers presented the findings as part of a USENIX Security 2026 paper, describing the exploit as fully deterministic with a 100% success rate, without a need for physical access and no code execution inside the victim VM.

Confidential computing exists to address a fundamental trust problem in cloud infrastructure: tenants often have no way to verify that a cloud provider isn't accessing their data. AMD SEV-SNP addresses this by creating hardware-isolated Confidential Virtual Machines, where memory is encrypted and access-controlled by a dedicated on-chip security processor called the PSP. To enforce those boundaries, SEV-SNP relies on a structure called the Reverse Map Table — a per-page access control table stored in memory — which the PSP initializes securely during boot. Attestation, the mechanism by which tenants cryptographically verify their environment is genuine and untampered, depends on that chain holding. This is what Fabricked breaks.

The technique hinges on a component most users will never think about: the Infinity Fabric, AMD's internal chiplet interconnect responsible for routing memory traffic between CPU cores, memory controllers, and peripheral devices. Because platform configurations vary across hardware, parts of the Infinity Fabric must be configured during each boot sequence by the motherboard firmware — the UEFI. In AMD's own threat model, that firmware is explicitly untrusted, since cloud providers control it.

The researchers found that the UEFI is responsible for issuing two PSP API calls that lock down Infinity Fabric configuration registers after initialization. A malicious UEFI can simply skip them, leaving the Data Fabric — the memory routing layer within Infinity Fabric — writable by the attacker even after SEV-SNP has activated.

From there, the exploit leverages a second, subtler flaw. The researchers found that PSP memory requests were incorrectly checked against MMIO routing rules — rules normally reserved for hardware device communication — before standard DRAM routing rules were applied. By configuring those MMIO mappings to shadow the RMP's memory region, the attacker causes the PSP's initialization writes to be silently discarded. The RMP never gets properly set up, but SEV-SNP reports successful initialization anyway. The platform believes the system is secure when it is not.

With an uninitialized RMP under attacker control, the hypervisor can read and write arbitrary CVM memory. The researchers demonstrated two concrete exploits: enabling debug mode on a production CVM after attestation — giving the hypervisor the ability to decrypt arbitrary VM memory, undetected by the guest — and forging attestation reports wholesale, allowing a malicious image to pass as a trusted one.

The researchers confirmed the exploit on AMD Zen 5 EPYC processors. AMD's advisory also lists firmware updates for Zen 3 and Zen 4, suggesting broader exposure across generations. AMD acknowledged the vulnerability following ETH Zurich's responsible disclosure in August 2025, assigned it CVE-2025-54510, and published security guidance under advisory AMD-SB-3034 when the embargo lifted in April 2026.

Organizations running workloads on AMD EPYC-based confidential computing instances should verify with their cloud provider that updated firmware has been deployed. AMD has issued patches covering Zen 3, Zen 4, and Zen 5 platforms. Home users and standard cloud workloads that don't rely on SEV-SNP confidential computing are not affected.

AMD has just launched six new Ryzen PRO series CPUs as part of its Ryzen 9000 family, bringing 3D V-Cache for the first time to this lineup, along with unlocking higher TDPs. The Ryzen PRO series is intended for workstation users who prioritize security and stability, even though they otherwise use identical silicon to mainstream desktop parts. The new CPUs range from 6 cores all the way up to 16 cores, so let's break them all down.

At the very top, we have the flagship Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D rocking 16x Zen 5 cores that can boost up to 5.5 GHz. It features 128MB of total L3 cache — either 8-core CCD already has the standard 32MB of L3 cache, but one of the clusters gets another 64MB of X3D stacked underneath. The CPU has a 170W TDP, which is the same as the 9950X3D it's based on, marking the first time a Ryzen PRO CPU has broken the 65W power limit.

Then there's the Ryzen 9 PRO 9965; basically the same CPU but just without the extra cache. It also features 16x Zen 5 cores with a 5.4 GHz boost clock and a 170W TDP. The L3 cache is limited to 64MB since it has no 3D V-Cache. Moreover, the Ryzen 7 PRO 9955 brings 12x Zen 5 cores with maximum speeds of 5.4 GHz and a 120W TDP, once again rocking just 64MB of L3 cache.

The Ryzen 7 PRO 99755X3D is the other X3D-branded chip in this lineup, housing 8x Zen 5 cores that can clock up to 5.2 GHz on a TDP of 120W. This chip has a 92MB L3 cache pool since there's only one 8-core CCD to stack the 64MB of 3D V-Cache under. You can also get the same CPU with just 32MB of L3 in the form of the Ryzen 7 PRO 9755, featuring otherwise identical specs to its X3D counterpart.

Lastly, the Ryzen 5 PRO 9655 enters the battle as a true midrange offering, sporting 6x Zen 5 cores with a 5.4 GHz boost clock but still a 120W TDP. That makes it quite unique from the other 6-core offering, the Ryzen 5 PRO 96455, which is limited to just 65W. For a while, all Ryzen PRO SKUs were restricted to that number to maximize efficiency, but it looks like AMD is changing gears to allow even relatively budget parts to consume more power. The Ryzen 5 Pro 9655 has 32MB of L3 cache as well.

That wraps up all the new SKUs, expanding the Ryzen 9000 PRO family to accommodate every tier of managed or workstation computing. Now, keep in mind that these CPUs aren't available for sale via regular retail channels. Instead, you'll find these at OEMs, such as Lenovo, which is already working to launch its ThinkStation P4 in Q3 2026. That's about all the details we have on availability, while pricing is never disclosed formally for PRO series SKUs anyway.

Just over a week ago, AMD revealed a $899 list price for the upcoming Ryzen 9 9950X3D2, which is the first CPU with AMD's 3D V-Cache across both CCDs. Listings for the CPU are starting to go live in the United States, and Amazon has the chip listed at $999.99, $100 above AMD's suggested retail pricing, and $340 above what the Ryzen 9 9950X3D is currently listed for on the site.

Although it's possible the price is just a placeholder, Amazon is accepting pre-orders for the chip, with units shipping out on April 22 when the CPU releases. We were able to add the CPU to the cart, with a final price of around $1,080 after taxes.

Elsewhere, B&H has a listing live at AMD's recommended $899 price but no ability to pre-order, and on Newegg, the CPU is simply listed with a "coming soon" badge.

AMD tells Tom's Hardware that the suggested e-tailer pricing (SEP) for the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 remains unchanged at $899. However, AMD doesn't dictate the final price that retailers set, so Amazon (and others) could sell the chip at $1,000 if there's enough demand for it.

It's hard to say for sure why Amazon has the CPU listed higher than AMD's suggest price, but it likely has to do with volume. Given that AMD's Ryzen 9 X3D CPUs are already low-volume models — compared, at least, to the wildly popular Ryzen 7 models — it's reasonable to assume that the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 will appeal to an even smaller audience. That, and the fact that we haven't seen a consumer-grade CPU near $1,000 since the days of Intel's Extreme Edition HEDT processors, could explain the bloated price.

AMD is promoting the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 as a workstation-focused processor, claiming performance gains in the realm of 5% to 12% in applications compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X3D. It's a relatively minor gain for a big increase in price, at least based on AMD's data, but there are significant costs for AMD to produce a chip like this.

In addition to an additional 96 MB chunk of SRAM, each Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 essentially takes away a CCD from two Ryzen 9 9950X3Ds. It's a halo product, and like any good halo product, it's priced accordingly.

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 is set to release next week on April 22. It's hard to say where pricing will go after launch, but for now at least, Amazon is accepting pre-orders for the chip at a slightly inflated price. Our test benches are warmed up and ready to go to see if the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 will earn a spot among the best CPUs for gaming.

Intel’s Arrow Lake platform was a huge disappointment at launch. It barely managed to compete with its predecessor, Raptor Lake Refresh, in gaming performance, all while AMD’s X3D CPUs continued to dominate the rankings among the best CPUs for gaming. Intel responded with heavy price cuts, but the situation was too far gone by then.

Now, we have a new challenger. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has launched at a remarkable $300 price point, $100 cheaper than what the Core Ultra 7 265K launched at, all while showing big increases in gaming and productivity performance. Intel is trying (maybe desperately) to regain the ground it lost with the original Arrow Lake and succeeding.

Its competitor for today’s faceoff is the Ryzen 7 9700X. Although on paper it has a lot fewer cores than the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, it is in the same price bracket as the Intel chip. This is a purchase decision potential buyers may face when they have $300-$350 to spend on a new CPU.

Let’s run these two CPUs through our rigorous six-round gauntlet to determine which CPU is truly the best, and if Intel has made a successful attempt at redemption.

Features and Specifications: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs Ryzen 7 9700X

Under the hood, Arrow Lake Refresh is exactly what it sounds like. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is based on the same microarchitecture as the 265K, built using TSMC’s 3nm process. Intel has provided 24 total cores in the 270K Plus, split into 8 Lion Core P-cores and 16 Skymont E-cores. There is only one thread per core across all Arrow Lake CPUs, bringing the total thread count to 24.

Intel claims that the 270K Plus is not just a better binned Arrow Lake CPU, but rather a new wafer and product code. Nevertheless, the main difference between the 270K Plus and the 265K is the clock speed. The Core Ultra 7 270K can climb up to 5.4 GHz on the P-cores, while the E-cores can boost up to 4.7 GHz. Being a K-series SKU, the multiplier is unlocked, giving you full access to overclocking.

Core clocks aren’t too different, but uncore clocks have shifted a lot. Intel increased the die-to-die frequency by 900 MHz compared to stock Arrow Lake chips, as well as bumped the fabric frequency by 400 MHz.

The chip also supports DDR5 memory at 7200 MT/s and 20 lanes of PCIe Gen 5. There is a total of 76MB of cache on the chip, with 36MB of that being L3 cache. Intel has kept the same power limits for the 270K Plus as the previous Ultra 7 CPUs, with a TDP of 125W and MTP boosting to 250W. The CPU uses the same Intel LGA 1851 socket and is compatible with existing 800-series Intel motherboards.

Its competitor, the Ryzen 7 9700X, is also no slouch on the spec sheet. Based on the Zen 5 architecture and built on TSMC’s 4nm production process, the Ryzen 7 9700X is compatible with the AM5 socket and existing 800-series AMD motherboards. It uses AMD’s chiplet-based design with core complexes, which has been very successful in previous Ryzen CPUs.

The 9700X has 8 cores and 16 threads, with no P-core and E-core split. The CPU supports DDR5 memory at 5600 MT/s and provides 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Although it does not have the ridiculous amount of L3 cache as its X3D siblings, it still has a respectable total of 36MB. AMD markets the 9700X with a TDP of 65W and an extended TDP of 105W.

The boost clock of the Ryzen 7 9700X is 5.5 GHz, which is exactly the same as the maximum turbo boost of the 270K Plus. All AMD Ryzen CPUs are unlocked, so you can overclock the Ryzen 7 9700X as well.

Comparing the two CPUs on paper is a bit complicated since their architectures and core layouts are so different. Intel clearly has the superior core/thread count and a slightly more modern underlying architecture. The clock speeds are very similar, but Intel supports higher-speed memory as standard. On the flip side, Intel has much higher power draw ratings.

⭐ Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

While it is not possible to say which CPU is better just by looking at specs on paper, Intel clearly puts up a better showing in this round. The 9700X does provide more PCIe lanes and a lower TDP, but Intel wins out in almost all other categories.

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

We ran both CPUs through a gauntlet of games across a wide variety of genres to get a good idea of average performance. The 1080p resolution was chosen since it maximizes the CPU usage and allows us to see the difference between the two chips. We also used the GeForce RTX 5090 graphics card to minimize GPU bottlenecks. You can read our individual reviews of both the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and the Ryzen 7 9700X to get a more in-depth analysis.

Kicking things off with our 17-game 1080p performance geomean, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus puts out an average FPS score of 162.2, leading the Ryzen 7 9700X’s average score by 2.4%. The gap between the two CPUs is slightly larger when looking at 1% lows. In our geomean, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 6.1% better 1% lows than the Ryzen 7 9700X. So far, so good for Intel.

Looking at individual benchmarks tells an interesting story. In A Plague Tale: Requiem at 1080p, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus actually trails the Ryzen 7 9700X by 3.2% on average. However, the 1% low numbers are flipped, as the Core Ultra 7 270K actually has a 14% better result in this particular title. The trend returns to normalcy in Cyberpunk 2077, where the Core Ultra 7 270K is 8% faster in both average FPS and 1% low results.

Elsewhere, we saw wins for the Ryzen 7 9700X, including in F1 2024, where it leads by a noticeable 13% on average. The 9700X also crushed it in Minecraft, leading by 33% in average FPS. However, both CPUs were tied in 1% low results at exactly 57 FPS, which is a peculiar result. Arrow Lake CPUs broadly don’t play nicely with Minecraft with a maximum render chunk distance of 96.

The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus also saw some big wins. In Hitman 3, the new Intel chip scored a 13% lead over the Ryzen 7 9700X, while also being 7% faster in 1% lows. Hogwarts Legacy also favored Intel heavily, leading to a 12.4% better average FPS result for the 270K Plus in this game. Both of these games support Intel’s new iBOT feature, which improves gaming performance in select titles.

It is safe to say that the two CPUs trade blows when it comes purely to gaming performance. We also saw some results that were essentially tied, such as Monster Hunter Wilds, Final Fantasy XIV, TES Oblivion Remastered, and Baldur’s Gate 3. However, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus slightly edges the Ryzen 7 9700X, delivering 2-3% better average gaming performance.

While gaming, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus drew 107.7W, which is a big bump over the Core Ultra 7 265K. It is also 18% higher than the Ryzen 7 9700X, which drew an average of 87.8W while gaming. However, when we look at efficiency numbers calculated in FPS/W, the new Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is still 2.6% more efficient while gaming than the Ryzen 7 9700X. The temperatures of the two CPUs were not significantly different in our testing.

Intel has launched the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus at a very competitive $300 price point, and that favors it quite well in the value conversation. Calculating the value using FPS-per-dollar, the Intel CPU edges out the Ryzen chip by 5.5%. The $10 price premium of the Ryzen 7 9700X, combined with its marginally lower gaming performance, makes it a slightly worse value compared with the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus.

⭐ Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

Intel’s new CPU puts up an impressive showing in the gaming round of this faceoff. While the advantages are marginal, it provides slightly better gaming performance than the Ryzen 7 9700X at a lower price, though it consumes a bit more power.

Productivity Performance: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs Ryzen 7 9700X

We also put the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus through its paces against the Ryzen 7 9700X in a series of productivity tasks. These tests cover both single-threaded and multi-threaded applications to give us a good idea of the general performance level of the two CPUs. While the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus clearly has way more cores, the comparison makes sense since both CPUs are very similar in price at the time of writing.

We have a huge result for the new Core Ultra 7 270K Plus right off the bat when we look at our multithreaded performance ranking geomean. The Ultra 7 270K Plus delivers chart-topping multi-core performance in our testing, and leaves the Ryzen 7 9700X in the dust. Comparing the geomeans, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a whopping 77% better than the Ryzen 7 9700X in our multi-core tests on average. That is almost double the productivity performance.

Looking at individual benchmark results, we see the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus take a gigantic 90% lead over the Ryzen 7 9700X in the Cinebench 2024 multi-core test. The POV-Ray test isn’t much better for the Red Team, as the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has a staggering 127% higher score in this test. The lead is 74% in Blender Junkshop, 92% in V-Ray 6, and 73% in HandBrake x265 10-bit encoding test. You get the idea.

The driving force behind Intel’s dominance in this round is the superior core/thread count of the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus. While the Ryzen 7 9700X is quite a competent 8-core, 16-thread CPU, its core layout pales in comparison to the 24-core, 24-thread 270K Plus. You can argue that the 16 E-cores don’t really contribute a lot in performance, but you can’t really bet against raw core count when it comes to multithreaded productivity performance.

Single-threaded performance also follows the same trend, though the differences are much less dramatic this time around. Our single-threaded performance ranking geomean still has the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus at the top of the pile, with an average 10% higher score than the Ryzen 7 9700X. It also improves upon the Core Ultra 7 265K by about 3.3%, which is a welcome bump in single-threaded performance.

Cinebench 2024’s single-core test puts the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus ahead of the Ryzen 7 9700X by 5.4%, while Cinebench 2026 sees the lead grow to about 7.8%. In the Lame Extended single-thread audio encoder, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus was about 3% faster than the Ryzen 7 9700X to deliver the finished file. The POV-Ray chart shows the Intel CPU pulling ahead by a much larger margin of 36.2%, but that result seems to be more of an outlier.

With a standout lead in both multi-core and single-core performance, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus should be the clear choice for consumers who are looking to use their PCs for both gaming and productivity. Frankly, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus gives much more expensive CPUs in this category a tough time, making it an excellent value for productivity.

⭐ Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

Thanks to its superior core count, the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus absolutely dominates the Ryzen 7 9700X in our productivity benchmarks, taking home this round by a landslide.

Overclocking: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs Ryzen 7 9700X

The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus ships with a 900 MHz bump in die-to-die clock speed compared to the Core Ultra 7 265K. This suggests that Intel has pretty much cranked all the knobs to the maximum straight from the factory. However, a unique new feature is that the bump in die-to-die frequency is now standard, and you don’t need a Z-series board to unlock it.

With a Z-series motherboard, you can get more granular in your overclocking. Intel has controls for core overclocking, of course, but also levers for uncore frequencies and official support for far higher memory speeds. Although the disappointment of Arrow Lake has stained its reputation, this generation introduced some of the deepest overclocking features we’ve ever seen, and they shine on the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus.

AMD’s Zen 5 chips still feature the same tried-and-tested overclocking suite, with the main focus on Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2) and Curve Optimizer. PBO2 allows users to let the CPU govern itself and adjust its frequencies based on available power and thermal headroom.

Curve Optimizer is another key feature that enables finer control. You can achieve even greater gains by fine-tuning the voltage offsets per core. This can often lead to sustained higher boost clocks without manually setting fixed high voltages or frequencies. While manual overclocking is still possible on Zen 5 CPUs, the best and most consistent results often come from Curve Optimizer and Precision Boost Overdrive 2.

While both CPUs offer unlocked multipliers, they take different approaches to overclocking. Intel’s approach offers slightly greater flexibility, and its CPUs traditionally have more overclocking headroom, though this is subject to the silicon lottery. AMD has better automated features, such as PBO, but overclocking gains are often minimal.

⭐ Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

Both CPUs have compelling overclocking features, but Intel just edges it out in this round thanks to greater flexibility with its overclocking tools.

Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs Ryzen 7 9700X

With the launch of Arrow Lake, Intel shifted its focus to efficiency, sacrificing some performance in the process. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus takes things back slightly in the power consumption department, pushing the power limits for more performance. We’re using the default 65W TDP for the Ryzen 7 9700X here, though note its power consumption will increase significantly with its optional 105W TDP mode.

Starting with idle power consumption, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus consumes an average of 29 watts in this test, while the Ryzen 7 9700X is around 31% lower at 22 watts. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus also consumes 4 more watts at idle than the Ultra 7 265K. When in an active idle state, such as YouTube playback, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus spikes to 38 watts, a clear and noticeable 52% increase over the Ryzen 7 9700X.

Moving on to all-core workloads to gauge peak power consumption, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus consumes a whopping 198% more power than the Ryzen 7 9700X in the y-cruncher multi-threaded AVX test. That largely comes down to Zen 5’s implementation of AVX-512, which allows the Ryzen 7 9700X to run these SMID-style instructions far more efficiently.

In Cinebench 2024’s multi-core render, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus consumes around 160% more power than the Ryzen 7 9700X. Of course, as we saw earlier, the 270K Plus also delivers around 90% better performance than the Ryzen 7 9700X in this test, but the raw efficiency numbers still favor AMD.

Looking at a few more benchmarks, the same trend can be seen in Blender - Monster, where the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus consumes 151% more power than the 9700X. Interestingly, the new Arrow Lake Refresh CPU also demands 45% more power on average than the Core Ultra 7 265K, a significant difference. Between the 270K Plus and the Ryzen 7 9700X, the power demand gap is around 145% in HandBrake x265 encoding, 161% in HandBrake SVT_AV1, and 179% in Blender Classroom.

We can also look at the performance-per-watt numbers from various benchmarks to gauge the efficiency of the two CPUs. First, in HandBrake x265 encoding, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is around 29% worse in watts-per-fps than the Ryzen 7 9700X. In Linpack, the efficiency gap narrows to around 10%, still in favor of the Ryzen 7 9700X. Cinebench 2024 also shows the points-per-watt calculation favoring the AMD chip by about 20%.

Another neat way to visualize the power consumption difference is by a scatter plot, which shows the relationship between power and performance a bit more clearly. In the Linpack efficiency graph, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is plotted to the far bottom right, while the 9700X is a bit to the middle. This means that the 270K Plus delivers much better performance with only a slight increase in power draw.

The Blender Classroom scatter plot is much more interesting. While the 270K Plus is still plotted to the far right, it is much higher on the task energy axis this time around. The 9700X is almost at the bottom-left of the graph, making it much more efficient than the 270K Plus at this task, even though its performance is quite a bit lower.

The entire conversation about power consumption is quite interesting. On the one hand, the Ryzen 7 9700X is much more efficient and consumes much, much less power than the 270K Plus, but its overall performance level is also quite a bit lower. It almost seems like the two CPUs are not in the same class, but their price tags suggest otherwise.

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 9700X

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X consumes less than half the power on average than the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, and is also more efficient in several tests, making it the clear winner in this round.

Pricing: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs Ryzen 7 9700X

Intel has launched the Arrow Lake refresh CPUs at a very competitive price point. The $300 Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is almost $100 cheaper than the Core Ultra 7 265K when it launched. This puts it in the same ballpark as the Ryzen 7 9700X, which can be found at around $310 at the time of writing. However, comparing the prices of the two CPUs is not as straightforward as just comparing the numbers on the box.

To get a clearer idea of how much each CPU costs, we need to evaluate the total cost of the platform. While the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is slightly cheaper up front, it may not be more affordable once we factor in the cost of other components such as RAM, a compatible motherboard, and a CPU cooler. Due to how recent the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is, prices have shifted up toward $350, as well.

DRAM prices are absolutely ridiculous at the time of writing due to the global memory shortage, so the numbers here may change. Both CPUs are compatible with DDR5 memory, which is why this particular cost is shared. A decent 32GB (16x2) DDR5 memory kit running at 6000 MT/s at CL36 can run you about $350-$400 at current rates.

The pricing conversation becomes more interesting once we get to the motherboards. Intel’s LGA1851 platform offers multiple chipsets at different price points, but we would go with Z890 motherboards to take advantage of the unlocked multiplier. A basic Z890 motherboard is currently in the $200-300 range, but you can go with more feature-rich variants that can cost as much as $600 for the really fancy ones.

On the AMD side, the AM5 platform has matured a bit and is not quite as expensive as Intel. Our chipset of choice for the 9700X is the X670E, the top-of-the-line AM5 chipset for this generation. A basic X670E motherboard can be found in the $150-200 range, while a more competent offering can be in the $300-400 range, slightly less than Intel’s offerings. You can even go with a more affordable B-series motherboard and still take advantage of the 9700X’s overclocking capabilities.

For cooling, both CPUs need competent aftermarket solutions. For the 270K Plus, a high-end dual-tower air cooler ($100-120) or a 360mm AiO liquid cooler ($150-250) is recommended, given its higher power draw. You can get away with a 240mm AiO liquid cooler on the Ryzen 7 9700X ($80-150), but just to be on the safe side, investing in a 360mm AiO is not a bad idea.

Currently, AMD makes a much stronger case for total platform cost. It can be paired with more affordable motherboards without losing functionality, and it is also easier and cheaper to cool. Plus, it draws much less power, which can affect other purchasing decisions, such as the power supply.

Moreover, Intel’s LGA1851 is basically a dead-end platform. We do not expect another CPU release on this platform, which is a big factor in determining the overall value of this investment. On the flip side, AMD has committed to supporting the AM5 socket until at least 2027, which makes it much better from a longevity standpoint.

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 9700X

While the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is slightly cheaper up front, its total platform cost is higher, which makes it a difficult bargain. Socket LGA1851 is also on its last legs, which does not do the value proposition any favors.

Bottom Line: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs Ryzen 7 9700X

With a dominant 4-2 lead in our six-round gauntlet, the new Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus decimates the Ryzen 7 9700X. Intel is seeking redemption with Arrow Lake Refresh, and they seem to have taken a step in the right direction with the 270K Plus.

The Ryzen 7 9700X put up a respectable showing in our gaming and productivity tests, but it was beaten in both rounds by the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus. The productivity numbers are particularly astonishing, as the gap is so big that you are almost forced to double-check the numbers.

The obvious caveat is power draw. Intel has increased the power draw of the 270K Plus quite significantly over the 265K. This also means that it consumes around 150-200% more power than the Ryzen 7 9700X in certain all-core workloads, though that gap shrinks if you plan on running the 9700X in its 105W mode. It is also a bit more costly once you factor in the price of the entire platform. Not to mention, the LGA1851 platform is on its way out with Nova Lake, which Intel says is on-track to launch this year.

Nevertheless, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has its place. It is a very competent $300 CPU that decimates most of our lineup in productivity, though it is still a bit behind the Ryzen X3D CPUs in gaming. As for the Ryzen 7 9700X, it seems overdue for a price cut, as it doesn't justify its $310 price tag when more compelling options are available at a similar price.

⭐ Winner: Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

More CPU Faceoffs

• AMD Ryzen 9 9950X vs Intel Core i9-14900K
• 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

A retro computing connoisseur has installed and booted Microsoft Windows 3.1X on a Ryzen 9 9900X and RTX 5060 Ti PC system. That’s a 1992 OS working on a bare-metal 2024 Zen5 CPU and 2025 Blackwell GPU. The full story contains a few nuances, but basically, a system and OS separated by over 30 years of huge advances kind of play nicely together.

In the video by Omores, above, you can see we start by inspecting a Spanish-language Windows 3.1X backup floppy disk set, which the TechTuber had access to. But there’s some important background to understand, before the first 3.5-inch installer disk starts ticking away in its drive.

A key part of this system, not yet mentioned, is its motherboard. This Asus motherboard’s ‘classic BIOS’ functionality doesn’t get in the way of users tinkering with old OSes like Windows 3.1X when the built-in Compatibility Support Module (CSM) is enabled. Moreover, we noticed Omores initially prepared the system using a Windows 95 boot floppy to create the bootable DOS FAT16 partition necessary for setup.

With that done, the retro enthusiast began the Win3.1X install from his USB-attached floppy. There was no problem using this drive, as it was recognized as Drive A: by the installer, and the 1992 media hadn’t suffered from any kind of deterioration, even hidden bit rot.

The first hurdle shows up after the transition from the DOS prompt to Windows 3.1X startup, as the GUI system crashes straight away. It is explained that this is because there is a clash between the OS’s Enhanced Mode and Omores’ modern hardware.

There is an easy workaround, though, as Win 3.1X could be run in Standard Mode. Intended for pre-i386 systems, Standard Mode is useful for this project due to its greater compatibility. A mode switch was all that was needed to get Win 3.1X up and running on this modern system.

Poking around the freshly booted Win 3.1X UI operating in a rather low resolution, Omores commented that the graphics were a bit “glitchy,” but there are supplementary patches and drivers that can improve it.

Adding the graphics driver VBESVGA from PluMGMK on GitHub made a big difference. The UI was scaled up to the display’s native 1920 x 1080 pixels properly. Moreover, the RTX 5060 Ti graphics card now worked without any irksome issues. The tinkerer had used this driver with previous projects, but sounds surprised by how well the driver has matured. It was previously “picky with Nvidia cards” and slightly glitchy, he comments. The driver has seen 44 releases, observes Omores, but it remains in beta.

With graphics fixed, the TechTuber’s attention switched to trying to get Enhanced Mode working for benefits such as virtual memory and improved multitasking. Omores’ chosen sound card also required Enhanced Mode.

So AHCIFIX.386 (from the same GitHub source as VBESVGA) was also installed. Installation was a simple file copy plus the adding of a line to System.ini. With that done, Omores fits his Ensoniq ES1370 audio PCI card. Though other cards he’s tried have Windows 3.1 drivers, this is the only one the TechTuber knows that works on modern hardware with original drivers and MIDI support. Please note that other brand cards using the same chip aren’t compatible, in the TechTuber’s experience.

If you are interested in following in these retro footsteps, the video description includes a link to a Windows 3.1 update script, which will help you go from floppies to a fully working Enhanced Mode system running on bare metal.

AMD, which is locked in constant competition with Intel to release the best CPUs, appears to be in retaliation mode. According to chi11eddog, a well-known hardware leaker, the chipmaker is refreshing at least two Zen 5 chips—the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X—to better compete with Intel’s latest Core Ultra 200S Plus (codenamed Arrow Lake Refresh) series.

In the past, AMD has used the “XT” moniker to designate refreshed versions of its mainstream Ryzen processors. However, with the Zen 5 lineup, the chipmaker appears to be shifting its strategy by adopting a new naming convention that uses incremented model numbers rather than the traditional “XT” suffix. Instead of going with the Ryzen 7 9700XT or Ryzen 5 9600XT, AMD is reportedly planning to market these refreshed chips as the Ryzen 7 9750X and Ryzen 5 9650X, respectively, much like its recent 9850X3D.

The change in nomenclature would imply that AMD may be aiming to create a clearer distinction between its vanilla and refreshed processors. The Ryzen 7 9750X and Ryzen 5 9650X would be a clear response to the intensified competition from Intel's recently-announced Arrow Lake Refresh. AMD's rumored new naming approach isn't awful, either, as it could help consumers more easily identify overall improvements, with higher numbers indicating better performance.

Ryzen 7 9750X and Ryzen 5 9650X Specifications*

*Specifications are unconfirmed by AMD.

The Ryzen 7 9750X and Ryzen 5 9650X will reportedly retain the core specifications of their standard counterparts, with the primary improvements manifesting as higher clock speeds. That's the standard hallmark of processor refreshes, after all. The Ryzen 7 9750X and Ryzen 5 9650X should offer tangible performance gains. According to the leaked information, the duo of refresh chips will flaunt a 400 MHz increase in base clock speeds and a 100 MHz bump in boost clock speeds. It translates to an impressive 10% uplift in base clock frequency, although the boost clock improvement is a more modest 2%.

The trade-off for higher clock speeds is increased power consumption. The Ryzen 7 9750X and Ryzen 5 9650X may feature a 120W TDP, a significant jump from the original 65W TDP of the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X. It represents nearly a twofold increase, but that depends on how you look at it. Previously, AMD addressed the underwhelming performance of the original chips by introducing a 105W TDP option. Using that as a reference point, the Ryzen 7 9750X and Ryzen 5 9650X only portray a 15W increase, about 14% higher.

The higher clock speeds and TDP may appear incremental on paper, but in real-world usage, they would allow the processors to maintain higher sustained clock speeds, yielding better overall performance. TDP only describes the thermal design of the processor, however. Real-world power consumption is a different metric entirely.

AMD’s decision to refresh the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X is no coincidence. Mid-range processors are strong sellers for AMD, and the chipmaker seeks to maintain and increase its market share in the highly competitive segment. The original Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X debuted in 2024 with MSRPs of $359 and $279, respectively, but their prices have since dropped to $307 and $184. The pricing strategy for the upcoming Ryzen 7 9750X and Ryzen 5 9650X will be especially important, as Intel has already positioned the rivaling Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at aggressive price points of $199 and $299, respectively. The stage is set for a fascinating showdown, if AMD's rumored refreshes actually make it to market.

After teasing desktop Ryzen AI 400 processors at the beginning of the year, AMD has finally provided details on its new (but slim) desktop product stack. Previously known as “Gorgon Point,” the desktop range shares DNA with the Ryzen AI 400 mobile lineup, carrying the same Zen 5 CPU cores and RDNA 3.5 graphics with a focus on power efficiency over peak performance. AMD is offering two variations of the processors, one with the PRO designation for enterprise and another without it, but neither will be available as boxed retail units. At this time, they’ll only show up in OEM systems.

The desktop lineup features three processors and six total SKUs. For each chip, AMD is offering 65W and 35W versions, again showcasing how similar these chips are to AMD’s mobile offerings. The top-end Ryzen AI 7 450G comes with eight Zen 5 cores, 16 threads, a boost clock of 5.1 GHz, 24MB of cache, and Radeon 860M graphics with eight RDNA 3.5 CUs. There are two six-core offerings with the 440G and 435G, which only differ in maximum boost clock and cache amount. Both include Radeon 840M graphics with four RDNA 3.5 CUs.

AMD is using a 65W TDP for these chips, and the 35W versions are noted with an “E” suffix (i.e. Ryzen AI 7 450GE). Otherwise, the specs are identical, from the core counts and iGPU to the maximum boost clock speeds.

The differentiator compared to AMD’s other consumer chips is the 50 TOPS NPU, earning them Microsoft’s Copilot+ certification. The silicon here, including the NPU, GPU, and CPU, is identical to the mobile Ryzen AI 400 lineup. The 450 on desktop is identical to the 450 on mobile, short of the power limit and form factor. As with all Zen 5 chips, Ryzen AI 400 desktop CPUs slot into the AM5 socket.

Although the silicon is identical, AMD is only pushing out the bottom rung of its Gorgon Point lineup on desktop right now. On mobile, AMD climbs up to the Ryzen AI 9 HX 475, which features a 60 TOPS NPU, Radeon 890M graphics with 16 RDNA 3.5 CUs, and 12 cores that can boost up to 5.2 GHz.

AMD hasn’t made any performance claims about the desktop chips yet, which isn’t surprising given this is a new category of product for Team Red. Given that the thermal design is similar and the silicon is nearly identical, we expect to see slightly higher overall performance from the Ryzen AI 400 desktop offerings compared to their mobile counterparts. As we’ve seen with consumer chips like the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X, Zen 5 is fairly efficient around 65W, with the optional 105W TDP mode offering only slightly higher performance for nearly double the power.

AMD will only offer these APUs in OEM systems for now. They come with Copilot+ certification, which calls for more than just an NPU. Critically, Copilot+ calls for at least 16GB of system memory, which is a variable AMD can’t control with boxed retail units. For now, AMD says commercial designs with these chips will be available in Q2 2026.

In total, AMD says it will have over 200 commercial designs available with its PRO chips, but that includes mobile offerings as well. Some of the OEMs AMD is working with include Acer, Asus, Dell, HP, and Lenovo. As you can see in the slide above, AMD is featuring smaller desktop designs, which is likely where we’ll see Ryzen AI 400 desktop chips in action.

In addition to desktop offerings, AMD is introducing its Ryzen AI PRO 400 series for mobile, which mirrors the consumer lineup in the product naming and specs, as you can see in the table above. With both the mobile and desktop offerings, the PRO validation is what sets these chips apart from AMD’s consumer lineup. AMD includes additional features, like a multi-layer security ecosystem and manageability for IT administrators.

We should see designs with these CPUs roll out shortly. We’ve asked AMD if we can expect the lineup to expand up to AMD’s 12-core Gorgon Point design that we see on mobile. We’ve also asked about the fate of the long-rumored Ryzen 9000G APU lineup, though we don’t expect much news on that front at this time.

AMD’s 3D V-Cache processors have been the fastest gaming CPUs on the market for a few years now, with the 8-core Ryzen 7 9800X3D being the current ringleader. The Zen 5-based CPU has been labeled the “gaming king” since its release, but now, that changes.

Enter the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, an 8-core X3D processor on the same architecture that is barely any different from the 9800X3D on paper. Its name gives it away; this is not a next-generation Zen CPU, nor does it provide more cores than the existing 9800X3D. It is a mid-generation release that improves upon the 9800X3D for a little bit of a price premium.

In this particular case, that might just be enough since the 9800X3D is already the fastest gaming CPU that money can buy, so more performance wouldn’t hurt, right? Well, that's what we are here to find out.

Does the Ryzen 7 9850X3D justify its price premium of $30 to $70 over the 9800X3D? Does it even perform better, or is it just marketing hype? Let’s get into the details.

Features and Specifications: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

On paper, it is hard to separate the new Ryzen 7 9850X3D from the old 9800X3D. They are both CPUs from the Ryzen 9000 family, built upon the 4nm Zen 5 architecture with a 3D V-Cache implementation on top. Both CPUs use AMD’s new X3D architecture, which places SRAM under the CCD to give the cores direct access to the Integrated Heat Spreader (IHS).

The new Ryzen 7 9850X3D offers 8 cores and 16 threads just like its predecessor. However, the two CPUs do differ in their clock speeds. While the base clock of 4.7 GHz is shared by the two, their boost clock is different, as the new 9850X3D can boost up to 5.6 GHz compared to the 5.2 GHz boost of the 9800X3D. That is the only difference between the two CPUs.

Both CPUs offer 104MB of total onboard cache, of which 96MB is stacked vertically in the form of 3D V-Cache. The two CPUs also share the same 120W TDP rating, with a PPT of 162W. The memory compatibility is the same (officially at DDR5-5600), and both chips slot into the AM5 socket, which you’ll find alongside AMD’s 600- and 800-series chipsets on motherboards.

AMD has priced the 9850X3D at $499, which is a $20 price bump over the $480 MSRP of the 9800X3D. It is important to note that the 9800X3D can be found at around $430 to $470 at the time of writing, which makes the 9850X3D look like a bit of a tough bargain on paper.

By the looks of it, AMD has kept it really simple with the mid-generation release of the 9850X3D. At first glance, it is basically a better-binned 9800X3D that can give you better boost clocks and can potentially sustain a higher clock speed for longer. But does that bump in clock speed translate into real-world benefits? We have the results down below.

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D

The Ryzen 7 9850X3D is extremely similar on paper to the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, with the only major difference being the clock speed. Nevertheless, that point is enough for the 9850X3D to take this round. However, specs tell only part of the story.

Gaming Benchmarks and Performance: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

This section of the faceoff will focus purely on the gaming performance of the new Ryzen 7 9850X3D against the former king of the ring, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D.

We tested both CPUs (and some relevant competitors) in a wide array of modern games at 1080p for this comparison. We chose the 1080p resolution specifically to showcase differences in gaming performance and tested with an Nvidia RTX 5090 FE to remove any GPU-imposed bottlenecks.

Jumping straight into the benchmarks, there are no major surprises when it comes to our 16-game geomean at 1080p. The Ryzen 7 9850X3D slots in right where you would expect for a mid-generation refresh, at the top of the pile. It outperforms the Ryzen 7 9800X3D by 3.2% on average across our tested games, putting out 211.2 FPS against the 204.6 of the 9800X3D.

This isn’t a groundbreaking lead, but it is about what we would consider a run-of-the-mill mid-cycle improvement over the 9800X3D. The lead stays relatively consistent when we dive into individual results as well. For instance, we saw a 2.8% uplift in A Plague Tale: Requiem, 4.7% in F1 2024, and 6.2% in Flight Simulator 24 on average. On the flip side, the two CPUs remained within the margin of error in several titles such as Starfield, Monster Hunter Wilds, DOOM: The Dark Ages, and Cyberpunk 2077.

We are also looking at similar performance scaling when it comes to 1% low numbers in our testing. In our 16-game geomean at 1080p, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D gave a 1% low result of 147 FPS, a 3.52% advantage over the 9800X3D, which ended up at 142 FPS. The 1% low results remain largely consistent and follow the same pattern when we look at individual games separately. A notable exception is in DOOM: The Dark Ages, where the 9850X3D has 12.6% better 1% lows compared to the 9800X3D, while having nearly identical average FPS results.

A major difference between the Ryzen 7 9850X3D and the Ryzen 7 9800X3D is the advertised boost clock of 5.6 GHz compared to 5.2 GHz for the latter. In our testing, we found the average CPU clock speed of the 9850X3D to be around 200 MHz faster than the 9800X3D during gaming, which falls a little short of the promises but is understandable due to pre-determined boosting behaviour.

As we’ll dig into in the overclocking section below, both of these CPUs have access to AMD’s Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO), as well as direct multiplier-based overclocking. The Ryzen 7 9800X3D is able to make up the performance gap between it and the Ryzen 7 9850X3D with PBO enabled; the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, on the other hand, doesn’t benefit much in games from an even higher maximum boost clock.

On thermals, the 9850X3D averaged 61 degrees Celsius during our gaming tests compared to 58 degrees for its competitor, which is not a major difference considering the improved performance.

What is a major difference, though, is the power draw. One can ignore a CPU that runs a few degrees hotter if it provides a tangible performance benefit. However, it becomes hard to ignore if a CPU draws a whopping 30% more power (106W vs. 81.4W) during gaming while delivering only 3.2% better performance. This gives the new 9850X3D a significantly worse FPS/W rating of 1.99 compared to 2.51 for the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. AMD clearly pushed the clock speeds higher in exchange for a large bump in power draw.

Furthermore, with a price tag of $500 compared to the $470 that you would need to spend for the 9800X3D, the new 9850X3D falls behind its competition in terms of value for money. If we look at our FPS per dollar numbers, the 9850X3D only manages 0.42 FPS/$ compared to the 0.44 FPS/$ result of the 9800X3D. The Ryzen 7 9850X3D also trails other competitors in this space, such as the Ryzen 7 7800X3D and the Core i7-14700K in this category.

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D

The Ryzen 7 9800X3D is technically slower than the Ryzen 7 9850X3D. It provides much better value and performance per watt. In addition, it’s able to close the gap with the Ryzen 7 9850X3D with PBO enabled, all while selling for between $30 and $70 less. Still, the 9850X3D is faster out of the box, so it earns the win.

Productivity Performance: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

We see an interesting pattern emerge when we compare the productivity performance of the two CPUs across our suite of multi-threaded and single-threaded workload benchmarks. Depending on how the program scales across multiple cores, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D can either be a bit better than the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, or it can be at complete parity.

First, let’s look at the multi-threaded performance of the two CPUs by analyzing our performance ranking graph. We can see that the Ryzen 7 9850X3D and the 9800X3D end up at the exact same performance level on average, and deliver almost identical scores in our geomean.

The outlook does not change in favor of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D even when we dive into individual benchmarks. The new chip only gains a 1% advantage over its competitor in Cinebench 2024’s multi-core score, while it is about 1.3% slower than the 9800X3D in POV-Ray. The scores are essentially tied in Blender Junkshop, Monster, Classroom, and Corona benchmarks, as well as the HandBrake x265 encoding tests.

This result may appear surprising at first, but it is to be expected from a mid-generation upgrade with no increases to core or thread count. The increase in boost clock does not yield a significant advantage in tasks that scale across multiple cores. However, when we look at single-threaded workloads specifically, the picture changes a bit.

In our single-threaded performance ranking geomean, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D puts up a score of 259 compared to 243 for the older 9800X3D, an advantage of 6.5%. The bump in boost clock yields a noticeable benefit when we are focused on only a single core. We see this superiority continue within individual benchmark results as well.

Cinebench 2024’s single-core test sees the Ryzen 7 9850X3D gain a nearly 7% advantage over the 9800X3D, while the POV-Ray benchmark yielded similar gains at 6.5%. We also see the 9850X3D complete the Lame audio encoding test nearly 6% faster. In this lightly-threaded productivity apps, the boosted clock of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D offers a clear advantage, even moreso than in games.

While the bump in boost clocks does not translate into superior productivity performance in tasks that scale across multiple cores, there does seem to be a notable advantage for the Ryzen 7 9850X3D in single-threaded or lightly-threaded tasks. Whether or not a 6-7% advantage in single-threaded workloads is worth the $30 (also 6%) price premium over the 9800X3D is up to the potential buyer to decide.

For productivity, however, the 9850X3D is not a CPU that you should go out of your way to buy. It can handle several workloads decently well, but the bulk of the 9850X3D’s value proposition (just like its predecessor) relies on its gaming performance. For the best of both worlds, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D remains AMD’s top CPU.

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D

The Ryzen 7 9850X3D marginally beats out the Ryzen 7 9800X3D in productivity tasks on the basis of single-threaded superiority alone. The boosted clocks directly translate into higher performance in lightly-threaded applications, which is something that doesn’t show up in games. Still, higher power consumption applies.

Overclocking: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

Since the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is a mid-generation upgrade, it does not offer any groundbreaking changes in its overclocking suite. The underlying feature set is the same between the Ryzen 7 9850X3D and the 9800X3D.

Just like the rest of the Ryzen 9000 series, the new Ryzen 7 9850X3D is fully unlocked with full support for manual overclocking with multiplier adjustments and voltage tuning. This is a common advantage of the Ryzen 9000 series X3D processors over the previous generations, which were quite limited in terms of overclocking due to the sensitive nature of the onboard cache.

The Ryzen 7 9850X3D can be manually overclocked with multiplier changes, but just like the rest of the Ryzen series, you are better off using Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2) and letting the CPU dynamically handle the boost clocks in relation to the temperature and available power. You also have access to Curve Optimizer and the new Curve Shaper feature, which is exclusive to Zen 5 CPUs.

While the basic overclocking toolkit remains identical between the Ryzen 7 9850X3D and the 9800X3D, the newer chip does start with a higher boost clock of 5.6 GHz. In our testing, games typically don’t call for more than 5.5GHz on this chip, which is a mark the Ryzen 7 9800X3D can easily hit with PBO enabled. Both support the same overclocking features, but the Ryzen 7 9850X3D has less to gain from them, at least when it comes to gaming. You can see that above in our 16-game geomean.

⭐Winner: Ryzen 7 9800X3D

Both CPUs share the same overclocking toolkit, and they can easily reach boost clocks 200MHz above stock with PBO enabled. In games, however, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D doesn’t benefit from those boosted clocks while the Ryzen 7 9800X3D does.

Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

Both the Ryzen 7 9850X3D and the Ryzen 7 9800X3D carry the same 120W TDP, but as we all know, TDP ratings don’t translate directly into real-world power consumption. We already looked at the power consumption figures during gaming, which saw the 9850X3D consume more power than the 9800X3D, and the same trend can be seen in our multi-core benchmarks.

In idle conditions, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D consumed 22% more power than the 9800X3D in our tests; however, that result sounds worse than it actually is, as we’re comparing 18W to 22W. In an active idle scenario such as YouTube playback, we saw the difference between the two CPUs shrink to 9% or just 3W.

When we put the CPUs under heavy load, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D really starts to pull away from its sibling. The Cinebench 2024 multi-core render saw the 9850X3D consume around 11% more power than the 9800X3D, while the Linpack test yielded a 6.5% power consumption difference between the two CPUs. The 9850X3D consumed 7% more power in the Blender Monster scene and nearly 20% more power in Junkshop, which is a bit on the concerning side.

However, the 9850X3D does behave a bit better in certain other benchmarks. In the y-cruncher multi-threaded AVX test, the two CPUs are separated by a difference of only 1 watt, which disappears in the single-threaded benchmark. The two CPUs are essentially tied in the HandBrake x265 and SVT_AV1 power tests as well. The Blender Classroom test saw the 9850X3D only consume 3% more power than the 9800X3D, which is a negligible change.

For heavily demanding workloads such as Cinebench and Handbrake, we saw the Ryzen 7 9850X3D peak at around 170W of power, with most tasks consuming between 130W and 140W. It is interesting to note that both Ryzen 9000 CPUs consume much less power than the competing Intel CPUs, owing to their simple arrangement of eight cores in a single CCD. The Ryzen CPUs do consume a bit more power at idle, but that is not really a concerning point.

A more interesting way to understand the power efficiency of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is to look at our scatter plots. In the HandBrake x265 scatter plot, we see that the Ryzen 7 9850X3D and 9800X3D essentially lie on the same point, making them similarly efficient in this task. However, in the Blender Classroom scatter plot, the 9800X3D lies a bit to the bottom right of the 9850X3D, which means that it performs better than the latter while consuming a bit less task energy, therefore making it more efficient.

At the end of the day, AMD had to make a tradeoff in order to bump the boost clocks of the 9850X3D, and it seems like they landed on power consumption. The thermals of the 9850X3D seem to be quite similar to the 9800X3D in our testing, but the power consumption is in the range of 5-10% more, with some outliers reaching up to 20%.

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

With lower overall power consumption and better efficiency, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D takes this round by a small but noticeable margin. Such fine margins do matter when you are looking at a mid-generation upgrade, especially when the competition in the space is fierce.

Pricing: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

AMD has kept it pretty simple with the pricing of the 9850X3D. The mantra seems to be “a little bit more performance for a little bit more money,” and that appears to be the case according to our test results. The Ryzen 7 9850X3D has an MSRP of $499 at the time of writing, while the older Ryzen 7 9800X3D had an MSRP of $479. Today, you’ll find it for as little as $430 and as much as $470.

Typically, the pricing comparison between two CPUs is not as straightforward as just comparing their sticker prices. Usually, it makes sense to compare the platform costs associated with the two CPUs in order to ascertain which CPU provides the overall better value for money. However, since the two CPUs in question are so similar and are compatible with pretty much the same hardware, there is little to separate the two except their going price.

Both these CPUs are compatible with AM5 motherboards, ranging from budget B650 boards at $120-$160 to premium X870 motherboards that can cost anywhere from $300 to $500 and beyond. It would make sense to pick an X870 motherboard with some beefy VRMs for the 9850X3D if you plan to do some overclocking as well.

DDR5 memory is skyrocketing in price at the time of writing, but that is an issue that is common to both our competing CPUs. Where the 9850X3D might differentiate itself is with the cooling solution and power supply of the build. If you plan to overclock the 9850X3D (either manually or with PBO2), we do recommend going with a more competent cooling solution, such as a 360mm AiO liquid cooler, which can cost around $150-200.

As established, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D also consumes 5-10% more power than the 9800X3D on average, and that can also impact the final cost of both systems. You could go with a more capable PSU for the 9850X3D build for surety’s sake, but ultimately, the difference in power consumption between the two CPUs is not enough to justify a step up in PSU wattage.

At the end, it comes down to value. The Ryzen 7 9850X3D costs 6% more than the 9800X3D, and performs about 2-3% better in games while being around 3-6% better in productivity tasks. It basically does what it says on the tin, without any extra bells and whistles. You have to bear the cost of increased power consumption as well, which makes the 9850X3D an unflattering deal all things considered.

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

With a lower upfront cost, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D is still the better bang-for-the-buck CPU. The extra $30 to $70 only seems to be justified if you are constantly chasing the top number in benchmarks.

Bottom Line: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D vs AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

After running both CPUs through our detailed six-round gauntlet, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D and 9800X3D are in deadlock with three wins each. The edge here goes to the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. Although the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is faster in games, its boosted clock speed only really shines through in lightly-threaded productivity apps. In addition, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D can make up the performance gap with PBO in games, while the Ryzen 7 9850X3D has little to gain from even higher boost clocks.

You could justify either processor, with even more emphasis on the Ryzen 7 9850X3D if you don’t want to overclock. Where the Ryzen 7 9800X3D really pushes ahead is pricing and efficiency. It’s able to offer performance within the low single digits of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D and sometimes match it, all while consuming less power and selling for anywhere from $30 to $70 less.

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

For absolute peak performance, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D technically comes out on top, even if the margins are sometimes by a fraction of a percentage point. If you’re building an entirely new PC with top-end gaming specs, an extra $50 or so is usually inconsequential; the Ryzen 7 9850X3D does what the Ryzen 7 9800X3D requires PBO for out of the box.

If you’re upgrading, however, there’s little reason to go with the Ryzen 7 9850X3D over the 9800X3D. Because of that, it’s the winner of this comparison, which is one of the closest we’ve ever done.

In my Ryzen 7 9850X3D review, I called AMD’s latest gaming chip “a 9800X3D in a trench coat.” It was a quip at AMD that, although technically the fastest gaming processor around, the new CPU was only 3.3% faster than the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, despite selling for anywhere from $40 to $70 more. It’s a small margin that isn’t worth the extra money, but it’s still a consistent one. Say what you will about the 9850X3D, but it is technically faster than the Ryzen 7 9800X3D in games where you aren’t completely bound by the GPU.

But PBO (Precision Boost Overdrive) changes that dynamic. For our CPU reviews, we manually disable PBO to keep testing consistent. AMD’s PBO is dynamic and allows the processor to eke out a bit of extra performance when thermal and/or power conditions allow. It’s an uncontrolled variable in our reviews, voids your warranty, and is dependent on silicon and your specific setup, so we leave it off. However, it’s very easy to turn on. And the Ryzen 7 9800X3D with PBO turned on looks an awful lot like the Ryzen 7 9850X3D.

I never expected wonders out of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D. It’s identical to the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, short of a 400MHz boost in maximum clock speed. It’s possible to hit those kinds of speeds on a Ryzen 7 9800X3D, though not without a lot of manual tuning and some luck from the silicon lottery. Unless you’re an overclocking enthusiast with patience and a bit of luck, you shouldn’t expect 5.6GHz out of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, while the Ryzen 7 9850X3D can hit those speeds out of the box.

Although you shouldn’t expect 5.6GHz from the Ryzen 7 9800X3D easily, you can still overclock it with PBO. Turn on PBO, let your motherboard determine the power limits (or turn them off), and add a 200MHz positive manual boost clock override. That’s something just about any Ryzen 7 9800X3D can do, assuming you have a decent CPU cooler. With just an extra 200MHz, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D looks nearly identical to the Ryzen 7 9850X3D in games.

We retested the Ryzen 7 9800X3D and 9850X3D with PBO turned on and a positive 200MHz boost clock override for both CPUs, to see how that impacted gaming performance, efficiency, and clock speeds. In short, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D can make up the thin margin between it and the Ryzen 7 9850X3D. AMD’s latest chip, however, has little to gain from even more clock speed, at least in games.

Before getting into the results, it’s worth reminding everyone that using PBO will void your warranty. We’re technically overclocking here, and that’s not covered by AMD’s warranty. If you’re concerned about that, just buy the Ryzen 7 9850X3D. Look at the extra $40 to $70 as the cost of an extended warranty.

Overclocking the Ryzen 7 9850X3D and 9800X3D with PBO

You can do a lot with PBO, and even more if you combine it with tweaking additional settings in your BIOS. I kept everything simple here, mainly because you don’t need to do much to get the Ryzen 7 9800X3D to perform like the Ryzen 7 9850X3D in games. In the BIOS, I turned on PBO to the “Advanced” mode — “Auto” is the default on most motherboards — and set a positive 200MHz boost clock override; the maximum allowed in PBO2. This isn’t a static 200MHz overclock. Rather, it extends the upper bound of PBO to allow up to 200MHz extra if thermal and/or power conditions allow.

I let my motherboard, in this case an MSI MPG X870E Carbon Wi-Fi, determine the power limits. That’s it. I didn’t do any manual tuning, undervolt with Curve Optimizer, or manually tune the memory beyond the 6000 MT/s EXPO profile pre-loaded on the kit.

From there, I ran Prime95 for 30 minutes to confirm the machine was stable and ran a 10-minute pass in Cinebench 2026 to check peak clocks on a single core and a single thread. That ended up being important because, as you’ll see in my tests, games don’t demand peak clock speeds from these chips — certainly not up to the 5.85GHz allowed to the Ryzen 7 9850X3D with PBO enabled.

Again, you can go a lot further than I did here. The scalar, for instance, will allow you to increase the length of the boost, though at a cost to CPU longevity. The whole point is seeing what you can quickly and easily achieve on any Ryzen 7 9800X3D. This isn’t a one-click overclock. It’s a two-click one.

I’ll list the full list of components for the test bench at the end of this piece, so skip ahead if you want to see what the bench looks like. The important note is that I tested with an RTX 5090 Founder’s Edition to remove any potential GPU bottlenecks.

With an extra 200MHz, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D gained 2.7% on average over its stock performance, leaving only 0.6% on the table compared to the stock Ryzen 7 9850X3D. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D gained a mere 0.9% with an extra 200MHz from PBO. Outside of average performance, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D gained quite a bit on the 1% lows — 5.1%, specifically, while the Ryzen 7 9850X3D saw a more modest 2.7% improvement in 1% lows.

Some of the other geomeans are interesting, as well, most notably clock speed. In games, at least, you see the extra 200MHz from PBO with the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, but you don’t see it with the Ryzen 7 9850X3D. Actually, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D with PBO had a slightly lower average clock speed (though only by an inconsequential 18MHz).

Power tells a similar story, with the Ryzen 7 9800X3D picking up an extra 20W with PBO on (24% higher than stock), but the Ryzen 7 9850X3D tops out right at 106W across both the stock and PBO passes. Despite the Ryzen 7 9850X3D coming out with marginally more power draw, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D with PBO enabled actually ended up the hottest during our game testing, jumping nearly 16% compared to stock behavior.

That suggests what we all expected, which is that the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is a binned 9800X3D. We’re dealing in very tight margins here, however.

A Plague Tale: Requiem Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

A Plague Tale: Requiem is an interesting game to look at. Although it clearly scales with clock speed, the game seems to benefit far more from the unshackled power available through PBO. The Ryzen 7 9800X3D gains 4.4% with PBO compared to stock performance, outpacing the stock Ryzen 7 9850X3D. AMD’s latest chip, however, gained an impressive 7.3%, and with much better 1% lows in tow.

Baldur’s Gate 3 Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

Baldur’s Gate 3 sees virtually no scaling outside of the stock Ryzen 7 9800X3D. The results for the Ryzen 7 9850X3D (both stock and PBO) and the Ryzen 7 9800X3D with PBO are slightly different, but they’re functionally identical, evidenced by the consistent 1% lows. Looking at clock speed, you can see the game tops out around 5.45GHz, with the stock Ryzen 7 9850X3D actually achieving the highest clock speed at 5.5GHz. This likely has to do with all-core clocks with PBO, suggesting there might be some minor performance gains in this game if you tune the Ryzen 7 9850X3D with Curve Optimizer on a per-core basis.

Counter-Strike 2 Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

Counter-Strike 2 is somewhat of a platonic ideal for this test. Scaling falls exactly how you’d expect it to, with both the Ryzen 7 9800X3D and 9850X3D gaining around 1.5% in average frame rate with an extra 200MHz via PBO. The real winner here for both chips is consistency. The Ryzen 7 9800X3D gained 16.6% in 1% lows with PBO, while the Ryzen 7 9850X3D gained nearly 21%.

Cyberpunk 2077 Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

Cyberpunk 2077 is heavy on your GPU, so it’s no surprise that the stock Ryzen 7 9800X3D and 9850X3D put up almost identical performance. Looking at clock speed, you can see average clocks refuse to budge beyond about 5.4GHz, explaining the stonewall these chips are running into. Regardless, every situation outside of the stock Ryzen 7 9800X3D demands far more power and cooling potential, and for very little performance gain.

Doom: The Dark Ages Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

Doom: The Dark Ages is heavy on the GPU, as well, and even moreso than Cyberpunk 2077 due to its always-on ray tracing. The idTech 8 engine shows good CPU scaling between different chips, but the margins are very tight here. You’re drawing more power and generating more heat, but the stock Ryzen 7 9800X3D is where you want to be for the best efficiency and largely similar performance.

F1 2024 Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

Like Counter-Strike 2, the results here fall where you’d expect them, though with less consistent steps in between. The Ryzen 7 9800X3D saw a decent 3.2% improvement with PBO, while the Ryzen 7 9850X3D only saw a 0.5% improvement. The consistent jump was in 1% lows, with both chips improving by nearly 5%.

Far Cry 6 Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

Far Cry 6 is more inconsistent than some games in our test suite, requiring five passes for each chip to get usable results. Here, you can see the median result for the stock Ryzen 7 9850X3D was actually a touch higher than the PBO version; that’s just what you get with this title sometimes. With less than 1% between them, we’re looking at functionally identical performance, especially approaching 300 fps. The Ryzen 7 9800X3D held up better, jumping 3.7% with PBO and overcoming the inconsistency inherent in this game.

Final Fantasy XIV Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

Final Fantasy XIV is one of the titles where the stock Ryzen 7 9850X3D showed big performance gains over the stock Ryzen 7 9800X3D, so it’s no surprise that PBO helps here. What is surprising is how the performance tapers off. The Ryzen 7 9800X3D saw a solid 5.8% jump with PBO, and a 7.2% increase in 1% lows. The Ryzen 7 9850X3D, meanwhile, only saw a 2% improvement with 1% lows in lockstep.

Flight Simulator 2024 Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

Flight Simulator 2024 is a more aggressive example of what Final Fantasy XIV shows. The Ryzen 7 9800X3D jumped by 5% with PBO turned on, but past that point, the scaling completely disappears. The performance is functionally identical between the Ryzen 7 9800X3D with PBO and both versions of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D.

Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

Spider-Man 2 is a game that’s notoriously heavy on CPUs, but the scaling with clock speed is minor. Even the Ryzen 7 9800X3D jumped just 1.7%, while the Ryzen 7 9850X3D saw virtually no change in performance. The big change came in power consumption, as is the case with every game I tested. Here, however, you’re just not getting much extra performance for the higher power draw.

Hitman 3 Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

The rest of the benchmarks here tell mostly the same story. We include them to keep our test suite rounded, but we’ll let the data speak for itself.

Hogwarts Legacy Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

Minecraft RTX Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

Monster Hunter Wilds Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

Starfield Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

The Last of Us Part One Benchmarks — Ryzen 7 9850X3D PBO

Quick and Dirty Gets the Job Done

As mentioned, flicking on PBO and setting a boost override of +200MHz is about as easy as overclocking gets. Even within PBO, you have access to Curve Optimizer and Curve Shaper to squeeze as much performance out of the silicon as possible, either across all cores or on a per-core basis. And that’s before manually tuning your memory.

PBO is dynamic, so the boost override of an extra 200MHz simply allows the CPU to scale to higher frequencies if the workload demands it. It’s not a flat overclock, and that behavior is important here. As you can see consistently throughout both stock and OC performance, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D and 9800X3D top out around 5.4GHz on average in games, with only a handful of cases where they crack the 5.5GHz barrier. These chips are capable of hitting higher clocks with PBO, which I confirmed before running any games. It’s just that gaming as a workload doesn’t demand those clock speeds from these two chips.

Even lightly-threaded games like Counter-Strike 2 don’t see a linear increase as the clock speed increases. In games that scale better to higher thread counts, like Cyberpunk 2077, the differences are dulled further. And in GPU-bound titles like Doom: The Dark Ages, they disappear entirely.

Although only $20 separates the Ryzen 7 9800X3D from the 9850X3D at list prices, the 9800X3D has seen price drops in response to AMD’s latest CPU. At the time of writing, it’s available for $443, and over the past week, I’ve seen it for as little as $430. Especially below $450, it’s hard to justify the Ryzen 7 9850X3D over the 9800X3D when the latter offers almost identical performance with PBO enabled. And, although the Ryzen 7 9850X3D can climb higher, that extra clock speed doesn’t amount to much in games — in our suite, it amounts to 0.9%.

Above, you can see the test bench we used for this batch of testing, which is identical to the system we used for our Ryzen 7 9850X3D review in both hardware and software. As usual, we tested with EXPO/XMP turned on, ReBAR enabled, and Virtualization-Based Security (VBS) turned off.

CES 2026 is right around the corner, which means it might only be a matter of days before we find out the official specs for AMD's new Ryzen 9000 series processors.

The company reportedly plans to announce at least two refreshed X3D SKUs at the big tech show: a dual-cache Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 and a more modest Ryzen 7 9850X3D. We've already seen preliminary product pages for the latter pointing toward a very high $550-600 ask, but tipster @momomo_us has just spotted new listings, suggesting something far more in line with expectations.

In the screenshot above, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is listed for $511.44, but the MSRP is missing, while both the 7800X3D and 9800X3D have their MSRPs mentioned, which are just a bit lower than their actual price. So, if we take the percentage difference between the two values for either CPU and apply that to the 9850X3D, the MSRP for it would come out to around $499. That's close enough to the $511.44 price currently showing, hinting that a $500 price tag is imminent for this upcoming chip.

As for the processor itself, the 9850X3D shares the same 8-core, 16-thread config as its namesake brethren. Compared to the 9800X3D, it has a 400 MHz higher boost clock, going from 5.2 GHz to 5.6 GHz. Everything else remains the same, including the 96 MB L3 cache (32 MB L3 + 64 MB X3D), and even the power limits.

It will reportedly succeed AMD's existing gaming champ and the top choice in our best CPUs roundup — the 9800X3D. That CPU launched at $479, a $30 increment over the previous-gen 7800X3D, so a $500 price tag (or somewhere around that) seems reasonable.

The other X3D chip AMD apparently has in store for CES 2026 is the aforementioned Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 featuring a monstrous 192 MB of L3 cache split across both 8-core CCDs. Compared to the 9850X3D, this CPU is much more elusive, and we have no idea about its price, but it did appear in a couple of early benchmarks recently.

Although AMD hasn't officially confirmed either chip, we've seen some hints directly from Team Red. In addition to the leaked shipping manifests that typically make the rounds around new hardware launches, AMD has listed the Ryzen 7 9850X3D in its official driver downloads.

AMD's CES 2026 keynote is scheduled for just under a week from now, with CEO Dr. Lisa Su presenting on Monday, January 5 at 6:30pm PT. If the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is indeed launching soon — and all signs are pointing in that direction — we should hear about it during the keynote address.

In late October, AMD's mid-cycle Zen 5 refresh leaked, giving us a glimpse at two new X3D CPUs the company has in store for CES 2026. One of those was the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, a higher-boosting version of the existing 9800X3D, and which has been featured in several leaks over the past few weeks. The other chip was a lot more mysterious: a supposed dual-cache Ryzen 9 9950X3D2, but updates on it went radio silent ever since — today, it has finally reappeared on both PassMark and Geekbench.

In PassMark, the 9950X3D2 achieved a multi-score rating of 71,585 and a single-core rating of 4,716. Both of those numbers are within the margin of error of the 9950X and 9950X3D, but a bit far from the highest-scoring CPUs on the database. Keep in mind that PassMark listings can be fabricated, so take all this with a heavy grain of salt.

The 9950X3D2 is reported to carry a whopping 192 MB of total L3 cache, which PassMark confirms, achieved by stacking it across both CCDs. It features the same 16-core, 32-thread layout as the 9950X and 9950X3D, but instead of 3D V-Cache on just one chiplet, it's present underneath both. This doubles the otherwise 96 MB L3 cache (32 MB L3 + 64 MB X3D) to 192 MB.

This would be the first time the chipmaker has achieved such a feat, rounding out an impressive generation as Zen 5 already made a massive leap by fully unlocking these SKUs. That was made possible by putting the extra 3D V-Cache under the CCD instead of on top, allowing for better thermal and power efficiency. Now, doubling that cache can lead to even more (albeit slight) gains in gaming workloads.

The second leak comes courtesy of Geekbench, where it appeared on socketed on a Galax B850M motherboard, paired with 96 GB of DDR5 memory. This listing confirms the boost clocks at 5.6 GHz, which aligns with the initial rumor. The 9950X3D2 scores 3,456 in the single-core test — the highest on Geekbench's processor benchmark database — while netting 21,062 points in the multi-core test, close to its namesake 16-core brethren.

Both the PassMark and Geekbench listings reiterate the core config, while the former mentions the 9950X3D2 as a 170W CPU, going against the 200W TDP that was being thrown around till now. AMD could've tweaked the final specs, or what's more likely is just the lack of samples and early nature of these runs has led to incorrect reporting.

These appearances suggest that either the CPUs have started to be shipped off to reviewers, or that motherboard vendors are testing these to configure the BIOS for launch.

This leak comes with CES 2026 right around the corner, where AMD could reveal new processors.

Choosing the right CPU is critical when you’re building a new PC. If you’re wondering which CPU to buy, our CPU benchmark hierarchy goes in-depth on our latest benchmark results, and our roundup of the best CPUs for gaming offers our current recommendations, taking into account pricing, performance, and efficiency. Even with those resources, choosing the right CPU is a complex topic with a lot of moving parts.

AMD and Intel both make excellent processors, and there are reasons to pick up something as weak as the Core i3-14100F all the way up to the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, depending on your purpose. Here, we’ll walk you through how to make that decision, as well as give you some broad pointers on how to parse CPU naming conventions and specs.

AMD and Intel are currently winding down their respective generations. AMD has built out a broad lineup of Ryzen 9000 CPUs based on the Zen 5 architecture, and Intel has confirmed that it will reuse its current-gen Arrow Lake architecture with a refresh of CPUs dubbed Core Ultra 300-S. Intel has also confirmed it will move beyond Arrow Lake to the new Nova Lake architecture in late 2026, and AMD is working on its next-gen Zen 6 architecture, but without a firm timeline.

How to choose a CPU – the TL;DR

When you’re shopping or choosing between different CPUs, there are some broad ideas to keep in mind.

• Budget for your build and purpose – A CPU does nothing on its own, so define your budget in the context of a full system and what you intend to use that system for. That might mean settling on a slightly less powerful (but cheaper) CPU for a gaming system and reallocating that money toward a more powerful GPU, for example. If you’re on a tight budget, our ranking of the best budget CPUs can help.
• Performance only tells part of the story – Performance benchmarks are critical, but they need context. Efficiency, temperatures, overclocking headroom, and architectural features play a role in the CPU you should buy, which we dig into in our individual CPU reviews. Further, certain benchmarks aren’t relevant to every buyer. The Core i9-14900K may blow away the Ryzen 7 9800X3D in video transcoding, for example, but if you’re not transcoding any videos, that performance vector hardly matters.
• AMD and Intel are both good – Some enthusiasts prefer one brand over the other, but there are plenty of reasons to buy an Intel CPU over an AMD one or vice versa. Our Intel vs AMD faceoff will get you up to speed on where the brands currently stand, but there’s no reason to play favorites for the sake of doing so.
• Trust data, not lineups – AMD and Intel segment their CPU lineups so it’s easy to spot a more powerful CPU over a weaker one. These gaps aren’t made equally, however. For instance, the Core Ultra 7 265K offers 98% of the gaming performance of the Core Ultra 9 285K (functionally identical), despite the Core Ultra 9 costing around $200 more. Performance doesn’t scale linearly across a lineup.
• Architecture informs specs, not the other way around – Specs are important, but they start to fall apart when comparing CPUs from distant generations. The Ryzen 9 3950X and Ryzen 9 9950X both have 16 cores and 32 threads, and the Ryzen 9 9950X has a 21% faster clock speed. The Ryzen 9 9950X isn’t just 21% faster, though; it’s often twice as fast or even faster in productivity applications.

We’ll walk you through how to understand CPU names, specs, and prices, as well as how to put them all together to choose a CPU for your specific purpose. We’ll also take a look at the motherboard chipsets available this generation, as well as overclocking and how it plays into a buying decision.

How much you should spend on a CPU

Ignoring the secondhand market, you can spend anywhere from $50 to over $700 on a consumer CPU. You can spend even more with something like AMD’s Threadripper range, with a chip like the Threadripper 9980X selling for $5,000. It’s important to define the purpose of your CPU so you know how much you should spend.

There are exceptions to any rule, but CPU prices break down into a few broad categories.

• Basic use ($50 to $100) – For basic PC use, including browsing the internet and running lightweight office applications. CPUs in this bracket include the AMD Ryzen 5 5500 and Intel Core i3-14100F.
• Budget ($100 to $200) – More performance to power light gaming and slightly more intensive productivity apps. CPUs in this bracket include the Core i5-12400F and Ryzen 5 7600.
• Midrange ($200 to $350) – The sweet spot for gaming PCs, with enough power to run content creation apps. CPUs in this bracket include the Core Ultra 7 265K and Ryzen 7 9700X.
• High-end ($350 to $500) – Plenty of power for gaming, but a stronger emphasis on accelerating productivity and content creation apps with high core counts. You’ll find specialty chips like the Ryzen 7 9800X3D in this bracket, as well as previous-gen flagships like the Core i9-14900K.
• Flagship ($500+) – The fastest processors in a given generation. You won’t see much of a boost in gaming performance, with flagships focusing almost solely on accelerating productivity applications with the highest core counts, clock speeds, and power consumption. CPUs in this bracket include the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X.

That should give you an idea of how much you should spend on a CPU. If you want to build a gaming PC, you’re probably focused in the midrange or high-end brackets. If you will regularly edit and transcode videos, however, you’re probably focused on the high-end to flagship range.

Understanding CPU names

AMD and Intel use slightly different naming conventions, but they follow the same template. Here’s how that broadly breaks down for desktop CPUs:

• Segment – Ryzen 5, Core Ultra 5
• Series – First number in model name, i.e. Core Ultra 5 245K, Ryzen 5 9600X
• Model – Numbers following the series number, i.e. Core Ultra 7 265K, Ryzen 7 9700X
• Modifier (Suffix) – Letter following model number, i.e. Core Ultra 5 245KF, Ryzen 7 9800X3D

that The segment and model numbers speak for themselves; a higher number is better. A Ryzen 9 sits above a Ryzen 5, and the Core Ultra 5 245K sits above the Core Ultra 5 225. The two tricky parts are the series and modifier, which is where a slight misunderstanding could lead to a vastly different CPU.

First, series: You may read that the first number in the model string refers to the architecture, but that isn’t the case. It’s just a series or generation. AMD and Intel reuse architectures. For instance, Ryzen 7000 ‘Raphael’ and Ryzen 8000 ‘Phoenix’ chips both use the Zen 4 architecture. Similarly, the Core i5-13400F has two versions, one that uses 12th-gen Alder Lake and another that uses 13th-gen Raptor Lake, though thankfully without any notable performance differences.

On desktop, Intel and AMD mostly keep the lines straight. Ryzen 8000 wasn’t a proper generation, for instance; it’s a lineup of APUs that don’t mingle with the main Ryzen 7000 lineup. However, we’ve seen willingness, especially from AMD, to blur the lines between generation and architecture significantly on mobile. It’s good to get the naming convention straight in the event the same happens on desktop.

Suffixes give you a lot of information, but they vary between Intel and AMD. For AMD, here are suffixes you should know:

• X or XT – X-series processors are the main lineup of chips within a particular generation from AMD. The XT designation is used for rereleases of X-series chips with higher clock speeds. On the other end, chips without the X suffix are rereleases with lower power consumption and clock speeds.
• G – CPUs with a G suffix note integrated graphics, particularly for a lightweight gaming APU like the Ryzen 7 8700G. From Ryzen 7000 onward, AMD has included integrated graphics in its main lineup, though they’re significantly weaker than the iGPUs featured in G-series chips.
• F – AMD seldom uses the F suffix, but it notes processors that lack integrated graphics that they’d otherwise have. The Ryzen 5 8400F lacks the integrated graphics that are otherwise available this generation. The Ryzen 7 5800X, however, doesn’t have the F suffix but still lacks integrated graphics.
• X3D – X3D is used to note CPUs with AMD’s gaming-focused 3D V-Cache. Notably, it doesn’t say what generation of 3D V-Cache a chip uses. Ryzen 7000X3D and Ryzen 9000X3D chips, for example, use a different 3D V-Cache design.

Intel has a longer, more rigid lineup of suffixes that it has maintained for decades, making models much easier to parse compared to AMD:

• K – Unlocked for overclocking.
• F – Lacks integrated graphics.
• S – Special edition release.
• T – Low-power design, meant for compact systems.

Thankfully, Intel’s suffixes don’t require much explanation because of how rigid they are. If a processor lacks the K suffix, you can’t overclock it, pure and simple. Intel will combine suffixes when necessary, however. The Core Ultra 5 245KF is unlocked for overclocking but lacks integrated graphics, for example, while the Core i9-14900KS is a special edition of the unlocked Core i9-14900K.

Critical CPU specs to know, and what they mean

CPU specs are only useful if you understand what they mean – and, more importantly, what they don’t. Unlike generations past, where big clock speed boosts and core count jumps were common, AMD and Intel have much more conservative spec bumps each generation, if there's a spec bump at all.

Specs are still important for neighboring comparisons, but it's important to understand what they mean in the broader context of a CPU's architecture.

Cores/Threads

A CPU with more cores can execute more instructions in parallel, but how that manifests in real applications varies widely. Rendering applications like Blender and transcoding applications like Handbrake scale well with high core counts, for example. Games, on the other hand, don’t see large performance jumps past eight cores, and many games don’t even see a marked improvement beyond six cores.

AMD’s modern CPU cores are designed with simultaneous multi-threading, or SMT. This doubles the number of logical processes running on a physical CPU core. So, the 16-core Ryzen 9 9950X has 32 threads. Intel originally introduced SMT – Intel calls it Hyper-Threading – but its current-gen Arrow Lake CPUs don’t use Hyper-Threading. Each physical CPU core only has a single thread.

Traditionally, CPUs use a homogeneous architecture; each core has the same design. Intel has pushed toward heterogeneous architectures in the past several generations, however, mixing together high-performance P-cores with high-efficiency E-cores within a single CPU. These designs can boost overall core count by leveraging weaker cores instead of high-performance cores across the entire die.

From a shopping perspective, it’s important to keep the heterogeneous architecture in mind for Intel chips. The Core i9-14900K has 24 cores compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X’s 16. However, both chips have 32 threads – the E-cores on the Core i9-14900K lack Hyper-Threading.

Clock Speed (Base/Boost)

Synchronizing the disparate components of a CPU architecture is a clock. Clock speed is a frequency – how many cycles are completed each second – and there are two numbers for a CPU. There’s a base and boost clock speed. In modern CPUs, the boost clock speed generally refers to the maximum clock speed on one or two cores, not the maximum clock speed for all cores operating at the same time. Often, one or two preferred cores will boost to higher speeds and handle heavy-duty calculations while the other cores operate at a lower frequency with less intensive work.

Clock speed is important, but it says less about how powerful a CPU is than it previously did. Critically, clock speed doesn’t say anything about how many instructions are executed per cycle. You can think about clock speed like the speed of a conveyor belt. You can increase the speed of the belt, but it might get too hot and break. Alternatively, you can keep the speed the same and widen the belt, or stack things on top of each other, to move more stuff at the same speed.

Rather than the belt speed, a better number to use would be how many items you're able to move. For CPUs, that number is instructions per clock, or IPC; you’ll also see it referred to as instructions per cycle. There are physical limitations of how high the clock speed can go, but if you're able to get more done with each clock cycle, the CPU runs faster.

IPC is a good indicator of architectural improvements from one generation to another, but you won’t find it listed on a spec sheet.

Cache and cache levels

CPUs execute a lot of instructions very quickly, so it’s important that the data needed for those instructions are close to the cores executing them. That’s your CPU’s cache. It’s a small amount of SRAM located on the package of the CPU. Without cache, your CPU would need to use your system’s DRAM for everything, which is considerably slower and would cause a significant bottleneck in your system. Decades ago, CPUs didn't need cache because the system memory could keep up with the pace of instruction execution. With a modern CPU, constantly going out to system memory would make your PC feel unusable.

Cache is organized into levels, with the lowest-number level being the fastest and smallest. L1 is the smallest and fastest, L2 cache is slightly larger, and L3 cache is larger still. CPU cores generally have dedicated L1 and L2 cache, while the L3 cache is much larger and shared across the cores. More cache is generally better, but there are limitations to how much cache can go on-package. Not only is SRAM expensive, it also takes up precious die space and contributes to heat. That’s why packaging technology like AMD’s 3D V-Cache have been such a breakthrough.

Although cache is important, more cache doesn’t lead to universally higher performance. It contributes to higher performance in applications where new data is flowing through memory frequently, such as in games.

Power and Operating Temperature

Power is a messy topic rife with misunderstandings in the world of CPUs. Generally, you’ll see power consumption shared as the Thermal Design Power, or TDP, of a CPU. However, TDP isn’t a power limit, and it doesn’t refer to power consumption. Rather, TDP refers to how much heat the CPU cooler needs to dissipate under maximum load. More power leads to more heat, so TDP is measured in power instead of temperature.

In use, your CPU will often consume less power than the TDP, and it can consume more power for brief periods of time as long as it stays within its thermal limit. To measure peak power consumption, AMD uses PPT, or Package Power Tracking, to note how much power the CPU socket can draw. Intel uses power levels, noted like PL1 and PL2. PL1 is synonymous with TDP, while higher level power limits show maximum power for transient spikes. For high-end, unlocked SKUs, Intel applies a power profile where PL1 = PL2. That means the CPU can sustain higher power consumption for longer than the specified window, assuming it has adequate access to cooling.

Finally, there’s a maximum safe operating temperature, often referred to as TJMax. Once your CPU hits its maximum operating temperature, it will reduce speeds in order to bring the temperature down. In the event the temperatures can’t drop, built-in safety mechanisms will shut down the PC.

Power is a complex topic, and specs don’t share the full picture of power consumption and operating temperatures. Here at Tom’s Hardware, we run a full suite of power and thermal tests for our CPU reviews, which provide a more accurate insight into what you can expect out of a chip. You should use power and temperature specifications to inform your cooler, case, and fan choices, not as hard and fast rules about power consumption.

Chipsets and sockets

Desktop CPUs are socketed, not soldered, so you’ll need to pick up a motherboard with the socket that matches your CPU. AMD is currently on Socket AM5 while Intel is on LGA 1851. Both are Land Grid Array (LGA) sockets, where the CPU features contact pads that press into spring-loaded pins in the motherboard socket. AMD previously used a PGA, or Pin Grid Array, socket where the pins were on the CPU itself. AMD abandoned this design with the release of Ryzen 7000 CPUs and sunsetting of Socket AM4.

The socket only defines physical compatibility between a CPU and motherboard; the chipset defines full compatibility. Here are the chipsets from AMD and Intel with the latest socket, and the CPUs they support:

AMD, especially, supports its sockets for several generations even with evolving chipsets. Pairing a newer CPU with an older chipset will generally require a BIOS update. Intel moves from socket to socket faster, but the same rule applies when the same socket is carried across multiple generations of chipsets.

There are a ton of differences between chipsets, but generally, you need a B-series chipset for AMD and a Z-series chipset for Intel. Those are the ranges that offer both memory and CPU overclocking – short of B840, which AMD oddly removed CPU overclocking capabilities from. A/H-series chipsets are for budget builds with limited capabilities, while higher-end chipsets pack features like additional PCIe lanes, and better USB and Wi-Fi capabilities.

The best course of action is to look at the individual motherboard you’re interested in once you’ve settled on a CPU. Chipset specifications aren’t rigid across the board, so you can only know the full capabilities of your motherboard once you have one in mind.

Overclocking and undervolting

Enthusiasts looking to squeeze the most performance out of their CPU need to keep overclocking (and undervolting) in mind. If you want to overclock your CPU, you’ll need to buy a specific type of CPU and motherboard.

AMD is more friendly to overclocking in that it’s available on nearly all desktop CPUs. There are rare exceptions like the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, but the vast majority of AMD CPUs have direct multiplier-based overclocking. In addition, AMD supports CPU and memory overclocking on both B- and X-series chipsets, short of the B840 chipset.

Intel charges a premium for overclocking capabilities. You need a K-series processor and a Z-series chipset for CPU overclocking.

Regardless of the brand, you can overclock the traditional way through your BIOS, or you can use one-click overclocking features. AMD offers Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO), which you can configure through the Ryzen Master software. Intel has its Extreme Tuning Utility (XTU) that offers easy-to-use dials and a one-click overclocking feature.

Should you overclock your CPU?

When core counts were low and applications were designed for only a handful of threads, there were direct, immediate performance benefits from even a minor overclock. Today, things are different. You can still see a performance boost, but it depends on the application you're using and the CPU you’re overclocking.

A stable, day-to-day overclock is best to bridge small gaps in performance. For example, the Core i7-14700K and Core i9-14900K both come with eight P-cores, but the Core i9 has a higher boost clock speed and four additional E-cores. In applications that care mostly about those eight P-cores, you can get close to the stock performance of the Core i9-14900K with a moderate overclock on the Core i7-14700K on a couple of preferred P-cores.

The benefits of overclocking are dynamic, changing from generation to generation and across different applications, so there are no hard and fast rules on if you should overclock or not. Even if you plan to overclock, you shouldn’t expect lineup-breaking performance differences with modern CPU architectures.

Putting it all together

A CPU is one of the most important components of your PC, but it’s only one component. Once you’ve settled on a processor, make sure to check out our guides on the best SSDs, best RAM, best graphics cards, and best power supplies to pick your other components. Our roundup of the best PC cases can help, too, with modern designs that look as good as they feel to build in.

• MORE: CPU reviews, analysis, and buying guides
• MORE: How to check CPU temperatures
• MORE: How to choose a motherboard
• MORE: CPU price index
• MORE: AMD vs Intel

Team Red's upcoming batch of refreshed Zen 5 SKUs is all but confirmed to launch at CES 2026 next year. We've been seeing various leaks about the new Ryzen 9000X3D chips, including the Ryzen 7 9850X3D — set to replace the flagship 9800X3D — which has just been spotted on Geekbench by Gray. There are two listings that not only confirm a prior leak but also provide early scores to compare.

The first listing shows the purported 9850X3D socketed inside a Colorful CVN B850M Gaming Frozen V14A motherboard, boosting up to 5.6 GHz and paired with 32 GB of DDR5-4800 memory. The chip scores 3,439 points in the single-core test and 17,530 points in the multi-core test. Those numbers largely put it in line with the existing 9800X3D.

The slow RAM and pre-release firmware are likely holding back the 9850X3D, as it's actually slower in multi-core benchmarks than the 9800X3D, while only around 3% faster in single-core results. Keep in mind that the boost clocks, which go from 5.2 GHz to 5.6 GHz, constitute an 8% increase, so don't expect any miracles even in the final performance numbers.

Another listing with a different Maxsun board shows the 9850X3D scoring 3,260 and 16,149 points in the single-core and multi-core tests, respectively. But this chip apparently only ran at up to 5.2 GHz, so it's best to ignore this one anyway. Under the CPU info table, both this and the previous results mentioned "8-Core Processor" in the name, after 9850X3D, so take all this with a grain of salt.

Otherwise, it's clear that the chip is completely locked in and ready for launch, while the dual-X3D Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 that leaked alongside it has yet to make a public appearance. Regardless, if you can actually get your hands on fast DDR5 memory in these times, the 9850X3D should beat its sibling when it eventually launches.

Almost two months ago, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D was initially leaked as part of AMD's upcoming X3D refresh for the Zen 5 lineup, which was later made official by a website entry, indicating that a launch was right around the corner.

That same tipster is now back with a leaked shipping manifest that lists the primary specs of the CPU, confirming it has a 120W TDP.

The 9850X3D is essentially the same 8-core chip as the current-gen gaming flagship from AMD, the 9800X3D, but with slightly higher boost clocks going from 5.2 GHz to 5.6 GHz. While that's not a significant uplift, it's impressive nonetheless and AMD has managed to achieve it without increasing the chip's power draw,. Everything else, like the 96 MB L3 cache and the iGPU remains unchanged.

The manifest shows an internal date of 18 October 2025, which lines up perfectly with the original leaks that first unveiled the 9850X3D to us. The part number is listed as "100-000001973-00," before which we can see the "120W" mentioned in the name. We don't have pricing or availability yet, but it should be around the $450 mark, now that we know AMD CPUs aren't due for a price hike.

TSMC's advanced packaging tech allowed AMD to put the extra 3D V-Cache right underneath the CCD in Ryzen 9000, which leads to less latency, improved clocks, and less cooling required to keep everything under control. Add simple binning to that list, along with some firmware optimization, and you have the 9850X3D, which should offer a tiny bit more FPS in games across the board.

AMD has quietly listed the Ryzen 7 9850X3D processor in its 'Drivers and Downloads' section (via Gray). With this official mention, the existence of the product is all but confirmed, and if the new CPU does exist, it could be the next best processor for gamers in this generation of CPUs.

AMD's Ryzen 7 9800X3D processor with eight cores running at up to 5.20 GHz with a 96MB last level cache already offers formidable performance in games. It has even inspired our Editor-in-Chief to call it the best gaming CPU. A higher product number almost certainly means higher performance, unless we are dealing with an OEM-specific SKU designed for a particular system.

Tom's Hardware has inquired about the new SKU, but due to the long weekend, we don't expect a quick response.

Now that TSMC's advanced packaging technologies enable AMD to place the extra SRAM tile below the compute tile itself, major thermal issues are solved and the way for higher CPU clocks is open. Also, now that the silicon is in production, it means better binning and tuned firmware for voltage and power delivery is available.

To that end, if Ryzen 7 9850X3D really arrives, we can expect a fine-tuned variant of the existing architecture — same 8 cores/16 threads and a large stacked L3 cache — but with enhanced boosting behavior and higher peak clock speeds when cooling allows. This would likely yield higher single-threaded performance and slightly improved responsiveness in workloads that care about latency or light-threaded bursts (e.g. gaming, UI tasks, light editing).

On the flip side, because higher clocks adds thermal density, sustained multicore workloads will require a more potent cooling system. That means while occasional bursts and quick tasks improve, heavy-duty throughput under long loads likely remains similar to the current model.

In general, it looks like the upgrade targets feel and real-world responsiveness rather than raw parallel compute, otherwise the CPU would move to a 12-core Ryzen 9 league that has different rules both in marketing terms of performance and actual consumer expectation.

It is no secret that AMD is quietly preparing to refresh its Granite Ridge family of desktop processors with several new models to solidify its market position, particularly among OEMs. Chi11edog on Tuesday revealed specifications of range-topping Ryzen 9000-series 'Granite Ridge Refresh' processors, and if they are accurate, then the new CPUs will be considerably more cache-heavy than predecessors.

If the information from Chi11edog is to be believed, then the new lineup will be headed by the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2: a 16-core processor clocked at 4.30 GHz – 5.60 GHz and equipped with a whopping 192 MB of L3 cache (up from 128MB in case of the 9950X3D) as it will come with two 3D V-Cache chiplets (one chiplet per core chiplet die). The default thermal design power (TDP) of the CPU will reportedly increase to 200W from 170W on current models, but the processor's performance increase could be well worth it in applications that demand high memory bandwidth, such as games.

For gamers who do not want to invest a small fortune in a top-of-the-line CPU, AMD will purportedly offer the Ryzen 7 9850X3D. This eight-core CPU will run at 4.70 GHz – 5.60 GHz and feature 96 MB of L3 Cache using internal SRAM and an external 3D V-Cache chiplet. Since the CPU will differ from the existing Ryzen 7 9850X3D with a higher turbo clock, it will retain a default TDP of 120W.

Since the information comes from an unofficial source, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, it makes great sense for AMD to refresh its Ryzen 9000-series 'Granite Ridge' lineup based on the Zen 5 microarchitecture, both from a technology and marketing strategies point of view.

AMD's Zen 5 CCDs have been made for well over a year on a proven TSMC N4 fabrication technology; their yields are probably very good, so the company can safely boost clock speeds, raise power limits, and stack more cache without spending too much on redesign. Also, the new Ryzen 9000-series processors will keep using the AM5 platform, enabling drop-in upgrades for existing users, higher performance for those who are in the market for a new desktop, and new models for PC makers who tend to like selling something different from what they did a year before.

In short, the launch of Granit Ridge Refresh enables AMD to squeeze extra performance from the existing architecture without major investments or requiring partners to release new motherboards (still, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 will likely require higher-end platforms anyway). The refresh also acts as a preemptive strike against Intel's upcoming releases, keeping AMD visible in enthusiast and gaming segments that demand every extra bit of performance.

AMD released a bunch of new Zen 3, Zen 4, and Zen 5 processors yesterday, refreshing both existing and older families of CPUs. During this time, the company also silently launched its new enterprise lineup: Ryzen PRO 9000. These include three new SKUs built on the same Zen 5 "Granite Ridge" architecture as the mainline Ryzen 9000 series, but they feature cut-down silicon in favor of enterprise management and security features not present on standard CPUs.

First up, we have the Ryzen 5 Pro 9645. It comes with 6 cores and 12 threads, clocked at 3.9 GHz with boost speeds up to 5.4 GHz. Then there's the Ryzen 7 Pro 9745 with 8 cores and 16 threads, featuring the same 5.4 GHz boost clock but a slightly reduced 3.8 GHz base clock. The final model is the Ryzen 9 Pro 9945, which only has 12 cores and 24 threads, clocked at 3.4 GHz and boosting up to 5.4 GHz. Cache levels also remain unaltered in comparison to analogous Ryzen 9000 models.

All three SKUs share the same 65W TDP, despite the standard Ryzen 9 9900X — which the Pro 9945 would be based on — featuring a 120W TDP. But it makes sense given there are 4 fewer cores on the Pro 9945. There are consistent base and boost clock gains over the previous generation Ryzen PRO 7000 series, like a 300 MHz boost clock increase on the Ryzen 5 Pro SKUs. However, the Ryzen Pro 9945 loses 300 MHz in its base clock when compared to its predecessor (3.4 GHz vs 3.7 GHz).

Performance-wise, AMD shared some slides highlighting the improvements these Zen 5-based enterprise processors carry. Even though they're technically not focused on raw numbers, the Ryzen 9 Pro 9945 is reportedly up to 44% faster in Blender and up to 22% faster in other productivity benchmarks, when compared to Intel's Core i7-14700 processor. Moreover, surprisingly, these CPUs will also come with a bundled Wraith Stealth stock cooler

After weeks of speculation, AMD has finally unveiled the latest chip in its Zen 5 family: the Ryzen 5 9500F. The only catch is that it's a China-exclusive launch (at least for now), which makes sense considering the Ryzen 5 7500F also debuted in China first, before arriving in markets outside of China.

As expected, the Ryzen 5 9500F has a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on Granite Ridge silicon. It has a 5 GHz boost clock, up from a 3.8 GHz base clock. There's also 32 MB of L3 cache on board, along with a 65W TDP — the same as the higher-spec'd Ryzen 5 9600 and 9600X.

Speaking of the 7500F, the new 9500F is seemingly at least 7% faster than its predecessor, and up to 24% faster in certain CPU-intensive games. AMD's own benchmarks put the 9500F around 15% ahead of the 7500F on average, which is a very respectable gen-on-gen uplift. While the chipmaker did not publish any productivity claims, these numbers largely align with last week's Geekbench leak, where the 9500F was stacked quite closely to the 9600 and 9600X, despite having lower clock speeds.

A Spain-based laptop maker has inadvertently leaked (via @x86deadandback) what seems to be AMD's Mobile CPU roadmap for the next two years. The roadmap spans from 2024 to 2027 and covers processors based on the Zen 4, Zen 5, and Zen 6 microarchitectures, but it isn't an official roadmap from AMD.

According to the roadmap, while AMD will continue to be aggressive in the laptop market to gain market share from Intel, it looks like going forward, it will consolidate its product families to offer a more consistent user experience across different segments. Keep in mind that since the roadmap comes from an unofficial source, it may contain inaccuracies.

High-end ang gaming segments

The ultimate gaming notebooks today use AMD's Ryzen 9 9955HX3D, 9955HX, or 9850HX 'Fire Range' processors with up to 16 Zen 5 cores. These CPUs — which are essentially AMD's Ryzen 9000-series 'Granite Ridge' processors in a BGA package for laptops — will continue to serve its market segments till 2027, when it is expected be replaced by AMD's codenamed Ryzen 'Gator Range' processors based on the Zen 6 microarchitecture and featuring an NPU with performance of over 40 TOPS and thus supporting all Copilot+ features. 

It is unclear whether these Gator Range CPUs will also pack Zen 6 core complex dies (CCDs) and an IO die (IOD) originally intended for desktops to serve elite gaming notebooks, but this is certainly one of the possibilities. 

Interestingly, but for now, AMD's roadmap does not list any replacements for its Strix Halo processors that have the ultimate built-in GPU, and the slide indicates that these parts will be available till at least the end of 2027. 

Premium and mainstream segments

Speaking of Zen 6, AMD is allegedly prepping Medusa Point processors based on the Zen 6 microarchitecture and made on a 3nm-class fabrication technology in an FP10 packaging for premium laptops in 2027 as well as Medusa BB (Medusa Baby) CPUs for mainstream notebooks in the second half of 2027 (keep in mind that the slide does not specifically attributes Zen 6 or 3nm to Medusa Baby). 

The roadmap does not disclose the core count of these products, though given the fact that they are made on a 3nm-class fabrication node and rather aggressive core count increase by competing processors from Intel, it is reasonable to expect Medusa Point and Medusa Baby to gain the number of cores compared to the chips that they replace. 

But before Zen 6-based Medusa Point and Medusa Baby arrive in 2027, AMD is said to introduce its codenamed Gorgon Point processor that will replace Ryzen AI 300-series 'Strix Point' and 'Krackan Point' as well as Ryzen 8000-series 'Hawk Point' in the premium segment in 2026. As a result, AMD will offer Zen 5 across all of its premium offerings in 2026. Meanwhile, Copilot+-capable NPU will be inside all of AMD's processors (except low-end Ryzen 7020-series) in 2027. 

The Gorgon Point will feature up to twelve Zen 5 cores and a new NPU with up to 55 TOPS performance. The unit will be made on a 4nm-class manufacturing technology (so AMD could save on design implementation and photomasks) and will span from a 15W to a 54W configurable TDP, thus serving multiple notebook classes.

One interesting thing to note is that while Gorgon Point clearly replaces Zen 5-powered Strix Point and Krackan Point in AMD's roadmap, it pushes Zen 4-based Hawk Point 8C to the lower-end mainstream segment, where it is set to serve till the second half of 2027 when it will be replaced by Medusa Baby.

Zen 2 for the entry level

AMD on Wednesday added the sixth processor to its Ryzen AI 300-series lineup. The CPU in question is the quad-core Ryzen AI 5 330 product that will be the entry-level product in the family, thus priced below others and making Ryzen AI more accessible to customers on a budget. While the CPU will come with a reduced number of general-purpose cores, it will still offer a 50 TOPS NPU, thus being fully compliant with the requirements of Microsoft's Copilot+ PCs.

AMD's Ryzen AI 5 330 is a quad-core processor operating at 2.0 GHz – 4.50 GHz, equipped with an AMD Radeon 820M integrated GPU featuring 128 stream processors (two GPU clusters) and an NPU with 50 TOPS performance. Just like other members of the Ryzen AI 300-series family, the model 330 comes with a dual-channel DDR5 memory controller, but unlike other CPUs in the lineup, the new unit has a configurable TDP (cTDP) of between 15W and 28W.

AMD does not disclose how many Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores the CPU has, but this is common for the general specifications of AMD's processors. In fact, the company also does not disclose whether the CPU uses Strix Point or Krackan Point silicon, but we can expect this information to be disclosed once the company adds the new SKU to its website.

Benchmark results of AMD's upcoming 64-core Ryzen Threadripper 9980X have been added to the PassMark database, and they are quite a mixed bag. On the one hand, the high-end desktop processor designed for creative professionals set the absolute record in PassMark's multi-threaded desktop CPU test, as observed by NotebookCheck. But on the other hand, the processor's results were rather unimpressive in the single-thread test, which is barely surprising given the positioning of the unit. Still, keep in mind that we might be dealing with a pre-production CPU. 

AMD's 64-core Ryzen Threadripper 9980X scores 147,481 points in PassMark Multithread CPU Mark, leaving behind 96-core Ryzen Threadripper Pro 7995WX (145,572), its direct predecessor, Ryzen Threadripper 7980X (136,517), and outperforming Apple's 32-core M3 Ultra (73,785) and AMD's 16-core Ryzen 9 9950X3D (70,238) by more than double. While it is logical that the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X beats its predecessor with the same core count, it is very surprising that it manages to beat the 96-core CPU, although by a slim margin. 

PassMark CPU test measures performance across a variety of metrics, including those specifically built to scale with core/thread count. For example, Compression, Encryption, and Physics tests will spin up as many threads as the CPU has. Therefore, it is unexpected that the 64-core processor has beaten a 96-core processor in this test. 

When it comes to single-thread CPU performance in PassMark, not everything is that rosy for AMD's 64-core Ryzen Threadripper 9980X CPU with an up to 5.40 GHz single-core clock. The unit scores 4,594 points, which is on par with Apple's 14-core M4 Max (up to 4.50 GHz, 4,603 points) or Intel's 24-core Core i9-13900KF (up to 5.80 GHz, 4,587 points). However, due to relatively low clocks of the model 9980X and peculiarities of the Zen 5 microarchitecture, the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is dramatically behind Apple's 28-core M3 Ultra (5,133 points, up to 4.05 GHz) and Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K (5,096 points, up to 5.70 GHz). Yet, it is not that significantly behind the Ryzen 9 9950X3D/9950X (4738/4736 points, up to 5.70 GHz). 

AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is a 64-core CPU that belongs to the Shimada Peak family and is based on the Zen 5 microarchitecture. The processor supports AMD's simultaneous multi-threading (SMT) technology, operates at 3.20 GHz – 5.40 GHz, and is equipped with 64MB of L2 cache as well as 256MB of L3 cache. AMD positions such CPUs for those who want to have ultimate performance in games as well as professional-grade applications, and would even like to overclock their processors or tweak performance using other means. 

A common thread among increasing user reports of failing Ryzen 9000 CPUs was their connection to an ASRock AM5 motherboard. Citing a conversation with the partner at Computex, Tech Yes City has brought to light that ASRock's initial PBO (Precision Boost Overdrive) presets were set too aggressively for initial CPU samples. It is believed these aggressive settings are what ultimately lead to the premature demise of these processors. AMD declined to comment on the story, while ASRock wasn't immediately available.

Earlier this year, reports of failing AMD Ryzen 9000 (Granite Ridge) processors were common on Reddit and other forums. ASRock initially dismissed reports connecting their motherboards to the problem as 'misinformation', all the while supplying a new BIOS to address boot-up and memory compatibility issues. Affected users had no other choice but to RMA their broken CPUs.

According to new details from Tech Yes City, the problem stems from the amperage (current) supplied to the processor under AMD's PBO technology. Precision Boost Overdrive employs an algorithm that dynamically adjusts clock speeds for peak performance, based on factors like temperature, power, current, and workload. The issue is reportedly confined to ASRock's high-end and mid-range boards, as they were tuned far too aggressively for Ryzen 9000 CPUs.

Each spring, most leading PC hardware vendors gather in Taiwan for Computex, a huge showcase of everything from giant laptops to mini PCs, monitors, cooling, storage, CPUs and graphics cards. If you love PCs like we do, this show is the most important one of the year.

This year’s expo was dubbed “AI Next,” because every computer and component has to at least claim to benefit from AI. However, many of the most innovative products were iterating on tried-and-true formulas that are either unrelated to or tangentially related to the training and inference features we commonly associate with AI.

This year’s standouts include a Minecraft-themed cooler, a blazing fast SSD, even-faster SSD controllers and a case that makes us all wish we were back in 1989. These are the 16 best products of Computex 2025.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9000 Series

The Ryzen Threadripper 9000 ‘Shamida Peak’ series builds on the company’s commanding lead over Intel’s competing workstation processors, stretching the performance advantage up to a ludicrous 2.2X faster than Intel’s fastest chip. That performance comes courtesy of the move from the Zen 4 architecture to Zen 5, along with the use of the faster TSMC 4nm process node.

The flagship Ryzen 9 9995WX touts 96 cores and 192 threads, with peak boost clocks of 5.4 GHz and a 300W TDP, delivering what should be devastating performance in threaded workloads when the chips arrive in July. As with the last generation, AMD introduced both WX-Series Threadripper chips for higher-end workstations, while the non-Pro Threadripper models slot into the HEDT segment.

The new Threadripper 9000 series drops into the same sTR5 motherboard platforms as the previous-gen Threadripper processors, making upgrades as simple as a BIOS update. The new processors deliver up to 22% more performance in threaded workloads than their predecessors. AMD does expect a few motherboard refreshes as part of the launch, but most vendors will stick with their existing platforms. That’s a win for upgraders, especially given that all existing sTR5 CPU coolers will also be compatible.

The Ryzen Threadripper 9000 series solidifies AMD’s already commanding lead in the workstation market through the virtues of the Zen 5 microarchitecture and an upgraded TSMC 4nm process node. We expect these chips to thoroughly beat Intel’s competing Xeon W-series chips in nearly every facet when they arrive for our review in June.

Read more: AMD Announces Threadripper HEDT and Pro 9000-Series CPUs: 96 cores and 192 threads for Desktops and Workstations

– Paul Alcorn

AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT

Now that Nvidia has dropped its mid-range level cards, AMD used Computex as a stage to set up its competitors. AMD's Radeon RX 9060 XT comes out in a few short weeks, and we're very interested to see how it compares to the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5060 and RTX 5060 Ti.

The card starts at $299 for an 8GB version and $349 for a 16GB model, though that assumes you'll be able to find them at retail price (a caveat we're seeing a lot with GPUs lately).

The 9060 XT will use AMD's new Navi 44 architecture with 32 Compute Units (CUs), and it boasts a 3,130 MHz boost clock, even higher than the Radeon RX 9070 series. In some charts, AMD had the 9060 XT beating the 5060 Ti, though it compared a 16GB AMD card to an 8GB Nvidia card. That being said, the 16GB 9060 XT's $349 starting price does put it on better price footing.

We're hoping this card will deliver in the value segment where it's desperately needed.

Read more: AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT launches on June 5, starting at $299

– Andrew E. Freedman

Phison E28 SSD controller

Phison pioneered the PCIe 5.0 SSD transition with its award-winning E26 SSD controllers that powered nearly every one of the new speedy SSDs when they first arrived, but now the Phison E28 promises to take performance and efficiency to new heights.

The original E26 controller was powerful, but it traded off higher power consumption for extreme performance, thus resulting in higher heat generation that not only required robust cooling solutions but also hampered its use in laptops.

The Phison E28 delivers huge efficiency gains by using a smaller 6nm process node that cuts power consumption dramatically. At Computex 2025, Phison demoed its new controller handily beating the competing SMI 2508 in power consumption during nearly every type of operation. That equates to lower heat generation, meaning these SSDs won’t require bulky coolers, and will also help PCIe 5.0 SSDs finally make their way into mainstream OEM laptops.

Phison didn’t skimp on performance to reduce the power consumption, though. The Phison E28 delivers up to 14.8 GB/s of sequential read/write performance and a blistering 2.5 / 3.0 million random read/write IOPS, speeds which were unthinkable a mere few years ago.

Phison says we’ll see a wave of E28-powered SSDs coming later this year, with a likely CES 2026 launch date. In fact, we saw plenty of E28 SSDs scattered throughout the Computex show floor at all of the main SSD vendors, proving that we won’t have to wait much longer for SSDs with extreme speeds coupled with excellent power efficiency.

Read more: Phison's E28 controller's 14.8 GB/s, 3,000K IOPS, and 7W power draw could make it the new king of PCIe 5.0 performance

– Paul Alcorn

Asus ProArt RTX 5080

Asus's take on the RTX 5080 for creatives has a woodgrain finish, which we've seen a lot on cases, but not as much on GPUs. But that's not the only way the ProArt RTX 5080 ProArt stands out.

Some variants of this GPU also have an M.2 slot for PCIe 5 SSDs so you can expand storage on the card. There's also a USB Type-C port on the back to add another port to the PC.

There are two versions of the card with "reference" specs, while the other two will have overclocks.

We don't see a ton of aftermarkets that impress us by being classy, but this card will look great in a lot of trendy cases with wood. Hopefully it performs as well as it looks.

Read more: Asus RTX 5080 ProArt comes with a wood grain finish and M.2 slot option

— Andrew E. Freedman

Crucial T710 SSD

At the moment, the fastest consumer SSD around is Crucial’s T705, which delivers an impressive 1.55M IOPS of random reads and 1.8M IOPS of random writes. But Crucial is debuting a massive upgrade in the T710.

The T710 promises to be 28 percent faster at random reads and 42 percent faster at random writes. The optional heatsink is about half the thickness of the one on its predecessor, saving space.

The M.2 chip is single-sided where the T705 was double-sided. The drive also uses 67 and 80 percent less power per IOPS random read and random write. Both of these features make it viable for use in a laptop where the prior model was not.

Read more: Crucial announces T710 SSD with 14.9 GB/s of performance, X10 portable SSD up to 8TB

– Avram Piltch

Predator Triton 14 AI

At 3.5 pounds and 0.68 inches thick, with a snazzy haptic touchpad and a pretty, 14.5-inch 2880 x 1800 OLED screen, Acer’s Predator Triton 14 AI looks to take on the best of what Razer has to offer, while appealing to both gamers and creators on the go.

It also has an oddball pairing of a lower-power Lunar Lake Core Ultra 9 288V CPU with RTX 5070 graphics. Time (and testing) will tell how this affects frame rates. But it also might mean significantly better battery life for those times when you aren’t gaming. I look forward to getting this ultraportable gamer in for testing to see how it compares to the also-new Razer Blade 14.

Read more: Acer has a new pair of 14.5-inch laptops for gaming on the go

– Matt Safford

Corsair Air 5400

I saw dozens of cases at Computex, but Corsair’s Air 5400 stands out because it combines the popular curved glass front and side panels with a fair bit of innovations and firsts. Rather than churning out another dual-chamber chassis, Corsair added a third chamber, isolating the 360 mm radiator by basically putting it outside the rest of the case, pulling in air from the front and venting it out the side.

To cool the GPU and other components, a duct funnels the bottom intake (provided by a trio of reverse-blade fans) directly over the motherboard area, while heat gets exhausted out of the top. And back-connector motherboards are supported for the cleanest interior possible.

The Air 5400 is also the first case I’ve seen with three USB-C ports on the top panel. But while I appreciate the more modern move here, I still would have preferred at least one USB-A port.

Read more: Corsair’s Air 5400 features a triple-chamber design for high-performance cooling

– Matt Safford

SilverStone FLP02

This case makes us want to party like it’s 1989! If you’re old enough to remember (or have spotted in your parents’ garage) a PC from the late 1980s or early 1990s, SilverStone’s FLP02 will take you back to a time when beige cases were all the rage and floppy disks were still at the top of the storage food chain.

This mid-tower case has all the classic design elements we loved when George H. W. Bush was president of the United States and most people weren’t using Windows yet. There are three 5.25-inch bays that have covers which look like 5.25-inch floppy drives but don’t function. You can remove the fascia and place an optical drive or set of ports or other internal drive inside.

There’s a hard power switch, a turbo button and a key lock. The key lock actually works in that it prevents you from turning the PC on or off if you have it turned. The turbo button controls your fan speed.

There are also a series of modern front ports that are hidden under a magnetic panel. These include two USB Type-A ports, a USB-C port and a 3.5mm audio jack.

With the FLP02, you can get the best of both worlds: a bold beige look that brings feelings of nostalgia and room for modern parts like an ATX motherboard, a long graphics card and plenty of fans.

Read more: SilverStone reveals late-80s style tower PC case — proudly beige but thoroughly modern inside

– Avram Piltch

Seasonic Prime Power Supplies

The biggest problem in PC building over the past couple of years has been the infamous melting power connector problem. If you use a graphics card with a 12VHPWR connector like the RTX 4090 and there’s a problem with how well it’s plugged in, the connector could melt and take your GPU with it.

Seasonic’s next-gen Prime power supplies attempt to solve this problem using sensors that detect if there’s a voltage problem, connect to an external device and alert the user. If the user is not around to act on the alert, the power supply shuts down to prevent damage to your equipment.

Read more: Seasonic’s next-generation Prime PSUs to will try to stop connectors from melting

– Avram Piltch

Asus ROG Falcata

Look, I’m not sure there’s a huge market for a high-end, split keyboard for gamers. But I have definitely had moments playing FPS and RTS titles where I only needed half the keyboard and the other was cramping my mouse game.

For those who have that feeling often, or who also prefer a split layout for more comfortable typing, Asus has delivered the Falcata. It features pre-lubed HFX V2 magnetic switches that feel smooth, and the whole keyboard feels built like a tank – albeit one that has been split down the middle and held together by a braided USB-C cable.

After a brief time with it, I was left wanting to spend more time with Falcata, both for gaming and productivity. I probably don’t want to know how much it’s going to cost, though, because the Falcata is clearly a niche product, and it feels nearly as premium as the company’s $500 ROG Azoth Extreme.

Read more: Asus ROG Falcata brings split layout and magnetic switches to competitive gaming

– Matt Safford

Cooler Master Elite case line

In a climate where everything feels like it’s lurching toward unaffordability, I was shocked when Cooler Master told me that all of its Elite PC case lineup is expected to sell for less than $100, and that at least one of the curved glass models should sell for just $70. That doesn’t include tariffs, though, so there’s a good chance the prices will be at least somewhat higher in the U.S.

But even if you tack on an extra $20 or so, these still look to be some nice-looking mainstream cases that would have cost significantly more a couple of years ago. Sure, you might not be able to afford a GPU, and inflation is still inflicting pain on our wallets elsewhere. But it’s nice to know we can look forward to some decent sub-$100 PC cases later this year from Cooler Master.

Read more: Cooler Master plans to launch a curved-glass case for around $70 – at least outside of the U.S.

– Matt Safford

Lian Li V200

Not to be outdone by anyone on the affordable case front, Lian Li’s V200 is somehow expected to sell for $110, complete with two glass panels, touch controls on the front for power and fan speeds, and a big 8.8-inch screen embedded in the side of the bottom chamber. That screen will also be sold separately – for $85. So if you really want to feel like the V200 is a bargain, think about it like you’re buying the screen and getting the rest of the case for $25.

Again, I would expect this case to sell for at least a little more when it comes to the U.S., but even for $130, this case seems like a bargain when Corsair wants to charge $249 for its case screen alone.

Granted, Corsair’s screen is much larger and supports touch input, but it’s hard not to be impressed by a pretty $110 PC case with a big screen on the side and other fancy features. Lian Li even angled the bottom intake area so the fans do a better job of blowing cool air at your GPU while also giving you a better look at the RGB in your fans.

Read more: Lian Li is replacing mesh front panels with tempered glass on its new Lancool cases

– Matt Safford

MSI X50 Gaming Monitor

OLED panels are all the rage nowadays with gaming monitors, especially QD-OLED panels, because of their increased brightness levels and superior color. MSI combines QD-OLED technology's fantastic color reproduction and responsiveness with an ultra-rapid refresh rate of 500 Hz with its MPG 271QR QD-OLED X50.

The monitor boasts a 2560 x 1440 resolution and a response time of 0.03 ms. It's also DisplayHDR True Black 500 and VESA ClearMR 21000 certified. MSI even uses an AI Care Sensor to intelligently determine if a human is sitting in front of the monitor and adjust brightness levels or power down the monitor completely to improve panel longevity and reduce power consumption.

In addition to the AI Care Sensor, which is part of MSI's broader OLED Care 2.0 protection suite, the MPG 271QR QD-OLED X50 also comes with a 3-year burn-in warranty.

Read more: MSI’s new 500 Hz QD-OLED monitor leverages AI tech to save it from burn-in

-- Brandon Hill

Asus ROG Strix Ace XG248QSG Monitor

When it comes to gaming hardware, a lot of the marketing around monitors involves bragging rights, and Asus definitely has that covered with the world's first and only 610 Hz gaming monitors. While Acer was technically the first to hit the 600 Hz mark last year, the new Asus ROG Strix Ace XG248QSG manages to squeak by with 610 Hz overclocked (600 Hz native).

To reach that lofty mark, Asus had to go with a tried-and-true TN panel, which it has enhanced and now dubs "Super TN." Super TN technology aims to improve color reproduction and brightness, both sticking points with this older (and seldom used technology for modern gaming monitors).

With that said, the ROG Strix Ace XG248QSG sports a 1920 x 1080 resolution (Full HD), AMD FreeSync Premium and Nvidia G-Sync compliance, DisplayPort 1.4 and HDMI 2.1 support, and covers 90 percent of DCI-P3.

Read more: Asus debuts 24-inch 610 Hz Full HD gaming monitor with a Super TN panel

-- Brandon Hill

Thermaltake MineCube 360 Ultra ARGB AIO

If you can’t ride your PC like a chicken jockey, you can at least get a Minecraft-themed cooler. Thermaltake’s MineCube 360 is a 360mm AIO cooler with a twist: it has a cube on top of the CPU that shows scenes from Minecraft.

Four sides of the cube hold separate, 3.95-inch, 720 x 720 resolution screens. Presumably you can put images other than Minecraft scenes on these, but why would you want to?

The cooler also features a 360mm radiator and SWAFAN EX12 ARGB fans. The fans attach to each other using magnetic quick connections and you control the whole thing using TT RGB software.

– Avram Piltch

V-Color Xfinity Manta DDR5 RAM

We’ve seen all kinds of RAM modules with different aesthetics. There are DIMMs with RGB and others with 3D printable toppers. Thermaltake even makes a full-color LCD screen you can attach to the top of your memory.

However, we’ve never seen anything like V-Color’s Xfinity Manta. This DDR5 RAM features a programmable LED screen on the front of the module. This monochrome screen can show anything from the amount of RAM to your CPU speed.

The Manta DDR5 modules also features RGB lighting on top.

Read more: V-Color puts displays on memory modules

– Avram Piltch

Zotac's Computex 2025 booth has a beautiful handheld for showcase, pairing a 7-inch AMOLED panel with AMD's powerful Ryzen AI HX 370 APU from the Strix Point family. Breaking from Windows and SteamOS, Zotac has opted for Manjaro Linux as the Operating System. The handheld is currently called Zone 2, but its final name, pricing, and availability are still unconfirmed.

Zotac's original Zone 1 handheld debuted in September last year. It is powered by AMD's last-generation Ryzen 7 8840U, introduced in December 2023. Zotac has clearly been on a slower release schedule compared to the competition. Initially revealed at CES in January, Zotac has once again showcased the expected follow-up to the Zone 1 at Computex. Their representative confirmed that the "Zone 2" designation isn't final, but that's what it will likely be called, with an expected launch window sometime later this year.

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 APU powering this handheld features a 12-core (4x Zen 5 + 8x Zen 5c) layout, the Radeon 890M (12 CUs) iGPU, along with a 50 TOPS capable NPU. While other alternatives are sticking to the handheld-focused and conservative Ryzen Z2 Extreme, Zotac is choosing the faster and potentially more expensive option. 24/32GB LPDDR5x memory options complement this with a 1TB PCIe 4.0 (M.2 2280) SSD that is user-upgradeable.

AMD announced its new Zen 5-powered Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9000 WX-series and non-Pro processors here at Computex 2025 in Taipei, Taiwan, touting up to 96 cores and 192 threads in the flagship 9995WX. AMD's newest 'Shamida Peak' Threadrippers bring the benefits of the Zen 5 architecture to AMD's premier WX-Series workstation and non-Pro processors, saying they deliver up to 2.2X the performance in rendering than Intel's fastest competing Xeon-W chips.

AMD also revamped its non-Pro Ryzen Threadripper 9000-series chips, with the flagship 9980X HEDT chip wielding 64 cores and 128 threads. AMD's full Threadripper 9000 series will be available in July.

The Threadripper 9000 chips have much in common with their predecessors, the Threadripper 7000 series, with AMD continuing to split the chips into the Pro and HEDT swimlanes. The chips also have the same core counts, base clocks, and cache capacities (up to 384MB) as the prior-gen models across the range of the product stack, but the peak boost clocks have been bumped up to 5.4 GHz for all models, an increase ranging from 100 to 300 MHz. The TDP ratings also remain the same 350W for all models.

The processors provide up to 22% more performance than the prior-gen in threaded workloads, and the lion's share of their increased performance from the jump from the Zen 4 architecture to Zen 5, which imparts a 16% IPC gain, and the move from 5nm to 4nm for the compute dies.

AVX-512 support is also fully baked into the design, dramamatically improving performance in applications that utilize the dense instruction set. The chip also come with all of the same I/O connectivity as before, including up to 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes, but memory support has been bumped up from DDR5-5200 to DDR5-6400. ECC is fully supported and AMD's Pro chips feature the AMD Pro Technolgies suite of RAS features.

As with all of AMD's Threadripper chips, these models have the same design as AMD's data center chips, in this case, the EPYC 'Turin' 9005 series, but come with special firmware and power tuning to optimize them for workstation platforms.

As you can see above, the chips have a large central 6nm I/O die flanked by rows of 4nm compute dies. With this generation, AMD has rotated the eight-core compute dies 90 degrees and arranged them into four vertical rows of three chips apiece, for a total of 12 compute dies with 96 cores for the flagship 9995WX. AMD removes four of those chips to create the 64-core 9980X, with further adjustments to the number of compute dies for the different models.

Both families of Threadripper 9000 chips will drop into the same sTR5 socket as the prior-gen chips. The WR90 platform with support for eight channels of memory will house the Pro chips, while value-optmized TRX50 boards with support for four channels of memory house the HEDT processors.

After a BIOS update, the new chips are compatible with existing motherboards. AMD expects a few new refreshed motherboard models from vendors, but it says the chips will largely leverage the existing ecosystem of sTR5 motherboards. As such, all of the existing sTR5 coolers on the market are fully compatible with the new processors.

AMD shared a few benchmarks to underline its performance superiority over Intel's Xeon-W lineup, but as with all vendor-provided benchmarks, take them with a grain of salt. We've included the full test notes below.

AMD claims the 96-core Threadripper 9995WX is 2.2X faster than Intel's 60-core flagship W9-3595X in the Cinebench multi-core rendering benchmark, an incredible lead. It's also 22% faster than the previous-gen 96-core Threadripper 7995WX.

AMD also shared a broader spate of benchmarks, with impressive gains ranging from 140% to 245% faster than the W9-3595X in a diverse set of real-world applications like media and entertainment, design and manufacturing, and LLM inference verticals, among others.

Overall AMD's Threadripper 9000 series appears poised to continue its utter dominance over Intel's competing workstation processors. AMD hasn't shared pricing yet, but given that its most affordable previous-gen HEDT model weighed in at $1,400 while the flagship retailed for $4,999, these chips will undoubtedly be pricey. As you'd expect, we'll have our own benchmarks coming around the time of launch in July.

AMD is reportedly going big on core-counts with Zen 6 mobile next-generation, as suggested by a new rumor from HXL, backed by several other leakers. Codenamed "Medusa Point", these APUs will reportedly carry up to 22 hybrid cores, based on Zen 6, with classic, dense, and low-power options. Since Zen 6 is at least a year off, and mobile versions might not arrive until early 2027, we need to be careful about putting too much faith in this leak.

Medusa Point is slated to be the follow-up to AMD's current Zen 5-based Strix Point APU series. We probably won't see a direct shift to Medusa Point as AMD is reportedly working on the Gorgon Point (Strix Point refresh) family, planned as an intermediate step.

That being said, architecturally, Medusa Point will switch to the Zen 6 architecture, which should be detailed by AMD sometime around Computex next year. The graphics engine will allegedly adopt the updated RDNA 3.5+ design, though RDNA 4 would've been the ideal choice for many. It's probable RDNA 4 won't make its way to the APU landscape, since AMD's next-generation graphics architecture, UDNA 1 / RDNA 5, is projected for release during the same timeframe.

The mainstream Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 offerings from Medusa Point have been purported to feature up to 10 hybrid cores, divided across four classic Zen 6 cores, four dense Zen 6c cores, and two new LP (Low Power) cores. These LP cores are very likely smaller than their Zen 6c siblings, with their Voltage/Frequency operation tweaked for maximum efficiency. This is complemented by an eight Compute Unit equipped RDNA 3.5+ based graphics engine, similar to the Radeon 860M. The iGPU is a downgrade from the current 16-CU design on the Radeon 890M, but this was likely done to free up space on the chip for other components.

Zotac is preparing to launch new mini-PC offerings at Computex next week, featuring AMD's beastly Strix Halo APUs and desktop Blackwell GPUs from Nvidia. So far, the company has showcased two designs with Nvidia hardware, featuring the desktop RTX 5060 Ti and the RTX 5070, and one AMD-based design with a Ryzen AI MAX CPU. Details on exact specifications and pricing have not been shared, but we'll hear more from the team at Taipei in just a few days.

Under its ZBOX Mini PC offerings, Zotac's Magnus-E lineup features compact yet powerful mini-PCs targeted at enthusiasts and content creators. The latest Strix Halo addition should extend their appeal to AI/ML developers as well. The upcoming Magnus One is equipped with an 8.48-liter chassis, housing a desktop RTX 5070 Ti 16GB along with a Core Ultra 7 processor from Intel, potentially from the Core Ultra 200S series.

The Magnus EN follows with a compact 2.65-liter design, home to the RTX 5060 Ti 16GB (desktop). This is accompanied by a mobile Core Ultra 7 processor, which can either be the Core Ultra 7 265H or its HX counterpart. With Arrow Lake, the distinction between Intel's H and HX grade processors goes beyond TDP and core counts. Arrow Lake-H features rebadged SoC Tiles from Meteor Lake, which can potentially offset performance gains, as shown in a previous review.

AMD on Tuesday introduced its Zen 5-based EPYC 4005-series processors aimed at entry-level uniprocessor servers for small businesses, edge deployments, and hosting providers. AMD's EPYC 4005-series 'Grado' CPUs come in an AM5 form factor and feature up to 16 cores and 32 threads in a bid to offer maximum performance within the framework of the default Windows Server 2025 license, which base price covers CPUs with up to 16 cores.

AMD's EPYC 4005-series processors resemble the company's Ryzen 9000 processors and therefore carry two eight-core Zen 5 core complex dies (CCDs) with 8 MB of L2 cache (1 MB per core) and 32 MB of unified L3 cache as well as one I/O die. In addition, the flagship EPYC 4585PX model features 64 MB of 3D V-Cache. All processors feature a dual-channel DDR5 memory controller that supports up to 192 GB of DDR5-5600 memory with ECC using two modules. As for power consumption, the CPUs are rated for 65W – 170W thermal design power, depending on the model.

When it comes to security, the new EPYC 'Grado' platform offers a dedicated processor with TrustZone compatibility and support for secure boot, TPM 2.0, and memory encryption capabilities.

Just like AMD's Ryzen 9000-series processors, EPYC 9005 processors feature 28 PCIe 5.0 lanes (four are used to connect to the chipset), software RAID 0, 1, 5, 10; DisplayPort 2.0; HDMI 2.1; USB 20G Type-C; and optional USB4.

"Growing businesses and dedicated hosters often face significant constraints around budget, complexity, and deployment timelines," said Derek Dicker, corporate vice president, Enterprise and HPC Business Group, AMD. "With the latest AMD EPYC 4005 series CPUs, we are delivering the right balance of performance, simplicity, and affordability, giving our customers and system partners the ability to deploy enterprise-class solutions that solve everyday business challenges."

AMD aims its EPYC 4005 CPUs at diverse workloads, from small businesses, branch, and storage servers to dedicated systems for tasks like video editing, code compilation, cloud gaming, and e-commerce. Essentially, EPYC 4005-series processors can be used for all performance-demanding tasks that also require robust security and extended availability.

AMD itself compares its EPYC 4005-series 'Grado' processors to Intel's Xeon E-2400 and Xeon 6300P-series CPUs that only offer up to eight cores. As a result, AMD's offerings provide tangibly higher performance across the board. Performance benchmarks conducted by AMD using the Phoronix test suite show that AMD's 16-core EPYC 4565P outperforms Intel's eight-core Xeon 6369P by a factor of 1.83. Despite the performance gap, the 4565P is priced lower at $589 compared to $606 for the Intel CPU. Other advantages include DDR5-5600 support and larger L3 cache.

Specifications for AMD's next-generation Zen 6-based server products have surfaced at Baidu, via HXL at X. Venice, the successor to AMD's current Turin server offerings, will reportedly pack as many as 256 cores based on the Zen 6c design, suggested with 1GB of total L3 cache, and that's without any additional 3D cache chiplets. We must tread with caution and not treat these details as definitive, since these products are likely a year or more away from launch.

AMD's current-generation Zen 5-based server EPYC 9005 CPUs, codenamed Turin, slot into the SP5 socket, similar to EPYC 9004 (Genoa), which used Zen 4 cores, adopting a design similar to Arm's big.LITTLE. AMD also launched these CPUs with denser Zen 4c/5c cores, with Turin Dense reaching up to 192 cores/384 threads. Similarly, AMD also offers the cost-effective SP6 socket, which currently supports AMD's EPYC 8004 (Siena) offerings with up to 64 Zen 4c cores, also rumored to be compatible with the speculated Zen 5-based EPYC 8005 (Sorano) family.

AMD is rumored to introduce new SP7 and SP8 sockets for its next-generation server offerings, succeeding SP5 and SP6, respectively. The larger SP7 platform is expected to accommodate EPYC 9006 (Venice) CPUs, which reportedly feature as many as 256 Zen 6c cores, divided across eight CCDs. This lands us at 32-core Zen 6c CCDs, which are also purported to feature 128MB of L3 cache, for 1GB of total L3 cache (128MB x 8) for a 256-core chip.

Today, we'll put the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D vs the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K in a heated contest to see which chip comes out on top. The best processor is not necessarily the one with the most number of cores or the highest clock speeds; rather, it is the one that fulfills your specific requirements and fits within your budget. Gamers do not necessarily require the highest-end chip to enjoy the latest AAA games, although having one wouldn't hurt. However, numerous compelling reasons exist for a consumer to seek to acquire a flagship processor.

You may be part of a small, elite crowd of enthusiastic gamers with the financial capacity to acquire the latest and greatest mainstream processor. Alternatively, you could be among the type of users who use their systems for more than just casual gaming, thereby warranting a more substantial investment in a processor that provides considerable processing power alongside exceptional gaming performance. The million-dollar question remains whether to choose between Intel or AMD, as both chipmakers have released highly compelling flagship processors in the current market.

AMD currently has two coexisting mainstream processor lineups in the retail market. The vanilla Ryzen 9000 (codename Granite Ridge) series was the inaugural launch, later followed by the Ryzen 9000X3D series, which incorporates AMD's 3D V-Cache technology, significantly enhancing gaming performance. Consequently, AMD has two flagship products: the Ryzen 9 9950X3D from the 3D V-Cache branch and the Ryzen 9 9950X from the main family. In contrast, Intel only has the Core Ultra 200S (codenamed Arrow Lake) series to compete against AMD, with the Core Ultra 9 285K as the singular leader of Intel's army.

Features and Specifications: AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D features Zen 5 execution cores and adheres to a conventional 16-core, 32-thread configuration. On the contrary, the Core Ultra 9 285K employs a hybrid design, integrating P-cores (Lion Cove) and E-cores (Skymont). Consequently, the Core Ultra 9 285K showcases a 24-core, 24-thread design. With Arrow Lake, Intel went with an approach without Hyper-Threading, so the Core Ultra 9 285K has fewer threads than the Ryzen 9 9950X3D.

Concerning clock speeds, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D exhibits a 16% greater base clock speed than the Core Ultra 9 285K. However, both processors possess identical boost clocks. For cache capacity, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D is equipped with AMD's 3D V-Cache, providing a total cache of 144MB (16MB L2 + 128MB L3). On the other hand, the Core Ultra 9 285K is accompanied by a cache capacity of 76MB (36MB L2 + 40MB L3). Consequently, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D has 3.2X more L3 cache, which is advantageous for gaming and specific workloads.

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D has a 36% greater TDP (Thermal Design Power) or, in Intel's case, PBP (Processor Base Power), than the Core Ultra 9 285K. Nevertheless, the latter features a 9% higher MTP (Maximum Turbo Power). Therefore, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D has superior power efficiency to the Core Ultra 9 285K.

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Core Ultra 9 285K support PCIe 5.0 connectivity and DDR5 memory. Both provide 24 high-speed PCIe 5.0 lanes to support the latest graphics cards and PCIe 5.0 SSDs. Regarding memory support, only the Core Ultra 9 285K has embraced CUDIMMs (Clocked Unbuffered Dual In-line Memory Modules), bumping the native supported frequency up to DDR5-6400. As far as conventional DIMMs are concerned, both support DDR5-5600.

Platform longevity favors the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, as the chip resides on the AM5 platform, which was launched in 2022 with AMD's commitment to providing support until 2027. On the other hand, the Core Ultra 9 285K uses the LGA1851 platform, which was released in 2024, but its life span is likely to be limited. There are indications that Intel may refresh Arrow Lake for LGA1851 before transitioning to the LGA1954 platform for forthcoming processors.

⭐ Winner: Tie

Specification-wise, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D has a big L3 cache thanks to AMD's 3D V-Cache technology and lower power consumption overall than the Core Ultra 9 285K. Another of AMD's strengths is the life expectancy of the AM5 platform, which is substantially higher than LGA1851. Investing in the platform now offers a ticket for future processor upgrades.

The LGA1851, in contrast, represents a fading platform. Arrow Lake may be the sole chip to utilize the LGA1851 platform, or possibly Arrow Lake Refresh, assuming the latest rumors are true. This is not particularly surprising, as the typical cadence for Intel sockets has consistently been two or three generations of chips, unlike AMD.

In LGA1851's defense, it is presently the sole platform that completely supports CUDIMMs. One advantage the Core Ultra 9 285K holds over the Ryzen 9 9950X3D is the possibility of leveraging CUDIMMs, such as high-speed memory DDR5-9200 and beyond. Nevertheless, considering the long life span of AM5, it is likely that full CUDIMM support will be introduced for AMD's platform in due course.

Gaming Benchmarks and Performance: AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

This article provides an overview of the Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Core Ultra 9 285K's performance metrics. We have also published in-depth individual reviews of these two CPUs, which you can refer to for more details. These graphs show the geometric mean of our gaming test results with these two CPUs at 1080p (1920x1080) resolution.

We paired both CPUs with the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 graphics card to minimize potential bottlenecks. Testing at 1080p might seem irrelevant for such a powerful setup, but this resolution allows us to see the full potential of our CPUs in gaming.

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D outperformed the Core Ultra 9 285K in gaming performance. This outcome was anticipated, as gaming performance is the former's most notable strength, attributable to the substantial L3 cache enabled by AMD's 3D V-Cache technology.

Cumulatively, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D yielded average frame rates that were 34% higher than those of the Core Ultra 9 285K throughout our testing suite of 16 games, utilizing a combination of High and Ultra graphical settings at 1080p. Furthermore, the AMD flagship demonstrated a 27% higher result in 1% Lows.

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Core Ultra 9 285K hit the market at $699 and $620, respectively. The former presents 0.28 FPS per dollar, while the latter offers 0.23. Despite costing 13% more, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D has more gaming value for your money. While the Ryzen 9 9950X3D has maintained its pricing, the Core Ultra 9 285K has dropped to $589, reaching 0.25.

⭐ Winner: AMD

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D is undoubtedly the better choice for gaming enthusiasts. While the Core Ultra 9 285K is a capable gaming processor, it falls short compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, which is almost 35% faster in average frame rates and close to 30% faster in 1% Lows.

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D has consistently maintained a higher price point than the Core Ultra 9 285K. Notwithstanding the recent price reductions of the Core Ultra 9 285K, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D continues to provide better value in gaming.

Productivity Performance: AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D flaunts superior multi-threaded performance, but the contest is heated. The Zen 5 processor delivers a mere 3% higher multi-threaded performance than the Core Ultra 9 285K.

Looking at benchmarks individually, there are times when the Core Ultra 9 285K is substantially faster. For example, the Intel chip boasted 18% higher results in POV-Ray or 11% higher in HandBrake x265. The Ryzen 9 9950X3D also has its moments, such as in V-Ray 6, where it outperformed the Core Ultra 9 285K by 17%.

Intel continues to be the leader in single-threaded performance; however, the disparity has been narrowing, as evidenced by the current generation. The Core Ultra 9 285K achieved a 9% better single-threaded overall than the Ryzen 9 9950X3D.

The POV-Ray benchmark clearly favors the Core Ultra 9 285K, which significantly surpassed the Ryzen 9 9950X3D by an impressive 31%. Conversely, the performance delta between the two processors wasn't as big in other workloads.

⭐ Winner: Tie

There is no definitive victor in this comparison. The Ryzen 9 9950X3D has higher multi-threaded performance relative to the Core Ultra 9 285K. Nevertheless, the disparity stands at merely 3%, a difference that may not be noteworthy across all workloads.

Meanwhile, the Core Ultra 9 285K is better at single-thread performance than the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, where the former exhibits a speed increase of 9% over the latter. It can be argued that a loss of 3% is more tolerable than a loss of 9%; this perspective holds validity when one prioritizes a chip for productivity purposes while overlooking gaming considerations.

Overclocking: AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Intel Core Ultra 9 285K have unlocked multipliers and are ready for your manual overclocking endeavors. The quality of overclocking can vary significantly between processors, and currently, we do not possess a substantial number of samples from which to derive definitive conclusions. Our results are primarily based on our overclocking experiences with the single sample available in our lab.

In the context of the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, we activated AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) functionality. For the PBO configuration, we utilized the 'advanced' and 'motherboard' power settings, accompanied by a 10X scalar adjustment and an increase of 200 MHz in the clock speed. Furthermore, we implemented a -15 all-core Curve Optimizer offset.

We've also experimented with Intel's latest '200S Boost' feature combined with some manual overclocking. But the long story short is that there isn't much practical headroom for performance gains with fabric overclocking. Intel also offers manual tuning for the P-cores and E-cores, though the actual performance gains are heavily weighted towards the latter.

⭐ Winner: Tie

Unlike the old Pentium, modern processors arrive with little headroom for serious overclocking with conventional cooling. It's a two-way street. On a positive note, you can rest easy at night knowing their chips are at or near their potential. However, on the downside, the art of extracting additional performance at no cost is slowly fading away.

Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling: AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

On the contrary, the Core Ultra 9 285K reveals a higher power consumption during various workload scenarios. The Intel chip operates within a power range of 219W to 325W, whereas its AMD counterpart operates between 178W and 228W. Notably, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D has a peak power consumption that is 30% lower than that of the Core Ultra 9 285K.

Most PCs rarely truly idle; users might leave various applications open on the desktop. There's also an 'active idle' use case wherein the user does a low-load activity, such as browsing the web or watching a YouTube video. To model this behavior, we created an active idle test (second slide) with two browser windows open (one with two tabs idling on a website and another window with a 4K YouTube video stream playing). We measure this level of activity across a 15-minute timespan.

The Core Ultra 9 285K has 30% lower idle power consumption than the Ryzen 9 9950X3D. Furthermore, the Core Ultra 9 285 K's active idle power consumption during YouTube playback is particularly notable, as it consumes 39% less power.

The Core Ultra 9 285K was more power efficient in the Linpack workload, displaying a 5% lower watt-hour. The Ryzen 9 9950X3D excelled in the Cinebench 2024 workload, landing a 10% higher watts per point and a 13% lower watts per FPS in the HandBrake x265 test.

The ideal balance is performance at a reduced power consumption. To elaborate, the processor at the bottom right corner of the power efficiency charts represents the best chip in terms of efficiency. The Ryzen 9 9950X3D outperforms the Core Ultra 9 285K in multiple benchmarks.

⭐ Winner: AMD

The Core Ultra 9 285K wins at idle power consumption, but the Ryzen 9 9950X3D consumes less power under load. While both idle and average power consumption should be considered, the latter is ultimately more important since we typically use our systems under heavier use or in 'active idle' conditions rather than letting them truly idle for prolonged periods.

Furthermore, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D has better power efficiency than the Core Ultra 9 285K. A power-efficient processor helps reduce system costs, including processor cooling and power supply capacity expenses. It also positively contributes to electricity savings.

Pricing: AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D launched last month at $699. Since this processor recently came out of the oven, it's unrealistic to expect any price adjustments. Meanwhile, the Core Ultra 9 285K debuted at $620 in October 2024. Nowadays, you can find the flagship Arrow Lake chip at U.S. retailers for $589, 5% below the launch price.

Intel processors usually maintain their value until the next generation arrives. Therefore, it's unlikely that the Core Ultra 9 285K will officially get any cheaper. You may still find a retailer deal here or there.

To put things in perspective, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D's gaming performance is 34% higher than the Core Ultra 9 285K while being 19% more expensive. The Zen 5 part has a 3% multi-threaded advantage over the Core Ultra 9 285K, but the Intel chip does have up to 9% higher single-threaded performance, though.

⭐ Winner: AMD

At $699, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D may look like a scary investment. However, our results show that even with that hefty price tag, the 3D V-Cache flagship gives you more value for your money in gaming. The multi-threaded performance isn't shabby, but it does lose out to the Core Ultra 9 285K in single-threaded performance.

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D already looks good. However, its appeal will grow further when the pricing starts to decline, whether through official price reductions or retailer promotions during special events such as Black Friday.

Bottom Line: AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

The gaming performance of the Ryzen 9 9950X3D was never in doubt, particularly given that lower-tier Zen 5 components equipped with 3D V-Cache have already surpassed the Core Ultra 9 285K by massive margins. However, the more important question is whether the Ryzen 9 9950X3D possesses any appeal outside the gaming realm. The answer to this inquiry is yes.

In addition to being a great gaming processor, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D can double as a productivity monster, similar to the vanilla Ryzen 9 9950X. Thanks to the Zen 5 architecture and the 16-core, 32-thread configuration, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D has no issues tackling demanding workloads, as long as they benefit from multi-threading. Unfortunately, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D's single-threaded performance lags behind the Core Ultra 9 285K.

However, if you can overlook the Ryzen 9 9950X3D's single-threaded weakness, the Zen 5 chip is a fantastic all-around performer that's power efficient and offers support for the latest technology. And unlike the Core Ultra 9 285K, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D doesn't leave you feeling like you just bought an obsolete processor—at least for a couple of years.

Right now at Newegg, you can purchase the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X CPU for the lowest price we've seen since it first launched in August of last year. It usually goes for around $279, but today, it's available for $229. Using promo code SSER2A34 at checkout will take an additional $10 off, bringing it down to $219.

This offer comes with some free gifts that further sweeten the deal. When you buy this processor from Newegg, you also get a Patriot P400 500GB M.2 SSD and a copy of the game Monster Hunter Wilds. Combined, the value of these adds up to over $100. We reviewed the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X ourselves and appreciated our experience, but we still recommend checking out our CPU hierarchy list to see how it compares to other processors on the market.

The Ryzen 5 7533HS is a new Rembrandt-R-based APU that AMD quietly introduced to the market last year and is just now appearing in budget laptops via realVictor_M at X. To clarify, this isn't exactly a brand-new chip; it is simply a rebadged Ryzen 5 7535HS, with lower boost clocks and presumably a more attractive price tag for partner(s).

The Ryzen 5 7533HS breaks away from AMD's original naming convention for the Ryzen 7000/8000 series, where the last digit was used to indicate versions within an architecture ('0' for the lower model and '5' for the upper model), like Zen 3 (7530) versus Zen 3+ (7535). This isn't entirely surprising as AMD has a history of abandoning naming schemes, evident with their latest shift to "Ryzen AI". The Ryzen 5 7533HS is tagged under the Rembrandt-R family, with Zen 3+ cores and an RDNA 2-based iGPU.

In terms of specifications, the Ryzen 5 7533HS is nothing special. It wields a six-core / twelve-thread layout, along with 3MB of L2 and 16MB of L3 cache. The included Radeon 660M iGPU offers six RDNA2-based Compute Units. There's a 150 MHz drop in boost clocks compared to the Ryzen 5 7535HS. As the 'HS' modifier indicates, the APU has a configurable TDP between 35W and 54W, with support for DDR5-4800 (SODIMM) and LPDDR5-6400 (Soldered RAM) memory types.

Motherboard vendors have started to deploy BIOS updates based on the AGESA 1.2.0.3C firmware. The new BIOS addresses a critical security vulnerability in AMD's Zen 5 chips found last month. This security flaw impacts Zen-based microprocessors across all product lines. While firmware updates patched Zen 1 to Zen 4, this vulnerability was only recently discovered with Zen 5.

According to AMD's security bulletin, the company relayed the updated firmware to motherboard vendors late last month. Due to the time each partner needs to integrate and validate new firmware for their unique BIOS on each motherboard model, we're only starting to see adoption now. So far, only MSI has the updated BIOS for some of its 800-series motherboards.

The specific vulnerability in question is called EntrySign (ID: AMD-SB-7033), and it allows unsigned and potentially malicious microcode to be executed on the CPU. The flaw stems from AMD's signature verification process, which used a weak hashing algorithm (AES-CMAC). This allowed researchers at Google to craft forged signatures for arbitrary or even malicious microcode. The catch is that said bad actors must have kernel-level (ring 0) privileges, and at that point, this bug should be the least of your concerns, at least in consumer-grade environments.

To be clear, hot-loaded microcodes don't persist across reboots. Every time you power down and reboot your system, the microcode resets to one that was permanently embedded in your CPU from the factory unless changed later in the boot process by the BIOS/OS, which adds another set of guardrails.

According to documents shared with Tom's Hardware by a source, Intel will announce a new "Intel 200S Boost" feature for its Arrow Lake processors tomorrow that's designed to boost gaming performance by providing official warranty coverage for a subset of overclocking features, including memory overclocking. As you can see below, we have put the new feature through a battery of tests before its official launch and found the gains generally match our expectations for memory overclocking, with an average improvement of 7.5% over the officially supported memory speeds.

It's no secret that Intel's Arrow Lake chips delivered disappointing gaming performance at launch — in fact, they are significantly slower than even Intel's own previous-gen models. The company has since corrected multiple launch-day issues, but that has not improved overall performance. The new approach aims to leverage several existing features and package them under the warranty protection umbrella, much like AMD introduced a 105W mode to boost performance for its underperforming 65W Ryzen 9000 models. However, Intel hasn't issued any official performance projections for the new feature yet.

The Intel 200S Boost feature enhances the performance of Arrow Lake K-series processors by enabling a few overclocking features in an easy-to-use one-click BIOS profile, but the new settings don't impact CPU clock speeds or power settings above current warranty limitations. Instead, the tweaks optimize specific memory and fabric speeds, marking the first time Intel has offered official warranty coverage for potential chip damage resulting from XMP memory overclocking profiles or adjusting fabric speeds.

There are, however, several caveats, and the tweaks are already well known to the enthusiast and overclocking community. Firstly, Intel now covers "up to" DDR5-8000 memory speeds within its warranty; however, not all chips will be able to reach that speed, and because the approach is still considered overclocking, Intel does not guarantee system stability with XMP profiles. As we demonstrate below, more affordable and easily supported DDR5-7200 kits offer nearly the same performance in most games and applications we tested.

The 200S Boost feature will be integrated into BIOS revisions from major motherboard vendors, with BIOS updates expected to arrive tomorrow from at least a few OEMs. The feature will only be implemented on Z-Series motherboards, which is a curious limitation given that Intel now supports memory overclocking on B-Series boards. It's also only available on K- and KF-series SKUs.

The 200S Boost profile also increases the speed of the Next Generation Uncore (NGU/SA Fabric), which enables communication between various chip elements, such as the CPU cores, memory controllers, and other components. This interface is upgraded from its standard 2.6 GHz speed to 3.2 GHz. Additionally, the Die-to-Die (D2D) communication fabric, which serves as a bridge between the Compute and SOC tiles or dies present inside the Arrow Lake chip, is increased from its stock 2.1 GHz to 3.2 GHz.

Intel is also obviously wary of motherboard vendors pushing the limits with their BIOS settings (which they have been known to do) and thus creating another potential chip reliability issue. As such, the company has also instituted several guardrails around the feature, with strict limitations that prevent motherboard makers from altering any other features, such as CPU clock speeds or power thresholds, as part of the 200S Boost settings. Intel also has voltage ceilings for the System Agent and memory that cannot be exceeded. You cannot use XMP kits that exceed the DIMM voltage ratings. The limits are listed in the table above.

The OEMs are allowed to tailor their voltage and speed settings within those constraints to optimize performance with their product. Any manual manipulation by the end user of clocks or other settings will automatically disable the 200S Boost profile, reverting you to manual overclocking. This feature also locks the overclocking mailbox to prevent OS-based overclocking. Finally, 200S Boost is entirely opt-in; it can't be enabled by default in the BIOS and requires users to turn it on.

Intel 200S Boost is separate from the Intel Performance Optimization (IPO) program, a China-specific collaboration between Intel and System Integrators (SIs) that facilitates more robust overclocking, including clock speeds and power settings. However, the SIs carry the warranty for that program, and Intel has no current plans to bring the IPO program to other regions.

Now on to the benchmarks.

Intel 200S Boost Gaming Performance

The 200S Boost feature is built on firmware with an MR1 or newer revision. We tested with the Core Ultra 9 285K on the MSI MEG Z890 ACE motherboard with a .1A53 BIOS revision that supports adding the feature, although it is not explicitly enabled yet. We merely recreated the correct settings for the feature in this BIOS, and sources close to the matter have confirmed that our results align with general expectations.

We tested six configurations and three memory speeds across 16 games at 1080p. The tested memory speeds include the stock DDR5-6400 with JEDEC timings, which was the previous limit for Intel's warranty, as well as the cost- and compatibility-friendly DDR5-7200 speed we use for our CPU reviews (32GB G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB DDR5-7200 kit for both). We also tested with a 32GB Patriot Extreme 5 DDR5-8000 kit to measure the peak supported XMP speeds.

The first slide displays the geometric mean of our gaming tests, which we conducted using an RTX 5090 Founders Edition. We tested the different memory speeds with the fabrics at stock settings and the listed memory speed (marked as stock in the chart), and then retested after increasing the fabric speeds to the higher 3.2 GHz threshold (marked as '200S Boost').

The largest increase in performance undoubtedly comes from memory overclocking. Moving from the stock DDR5-6400 configuration to the peak DDR5-8000 with fabric overclocking (200S Boost) yielded a 7.5% performance increase in our overall measurement. Naturally, performance increases vary by title, from as low as a 3.7% increase in A Plague Tale: Requiem to an 11.6% increase in Baldur's Gate 3. The per-game results generally hover in the 7% to 9% range. The titles that benefit most are simply the memory-sensitive titles, so there are no surprises here.

We, like many other outlets, test with a DDR5-7200 XMP profile as our default memory configuration. We chose this speed because it is widely supported by most chips (you may encounter issues with DDR5-8000 UDIMMs on some chips or motherboards) and it is more affordable — 32GB DDR5-8000 kits typically carry a $45 to $60 (43 to 57%) premium, yet deliver precious little extra performance.

We see that trend hold strong in our results, with the DDR5-8000 200S Boost configuration only being a mostly imperceptible 1.2% faster performance overall in 1080p gaming. Our advice for most enthusiasts remains the same — DDR5-7200 is the sweet spot for price and performance.

We have experimented with overclocking the fabric speeds in the past, but we found the increased performance to be largely unremarkable unless you are engaging in heavy overclocking of the CPU cores, which is not allowed in tandem with the 200S Boost feature.

To determine the impact of fabric speeds on the overall performance improvement, we toggled the fabrics between 200S Boost and Stock fabric settings for each memory speed. As you can see, it did give at least some boost in performance, but the gains undoubtedly fall into the imperceptible range. For instance, we measured a sub-1% increase in performance when using higher fabric clocks with the DDR5-6400 and DDR5-7200 configurations, and a 1.4% increase with the DDR5-8000 configuration.

It's possible that you could eke out higher gains from the fabric tweaks with lesser chips, like the Core Ultra 7 265K and the Core Ultra 5 245K, but you should keep your expectations in check.

We'll see how the fully-boosted Intel chips stack up against the competition further below.

In the interest of due diligence, we ran the chips through several productivity application benchmarks to assess the impact, but the results were entirely predictable — applications that benefit from memory overclocking saw small gains, while others saw none at all. In fact, the variations mostly fall within our expected run-to-run variance, so you shouldn't expect significant uplift in productivity applications.

The competitive landscape is basically unchanged

Here we've added the primary competitors for the Core Ultra 9 285K to the test results, and as you can see, the landscape remains largely unchanged from our most recent testing. Notably, we don't see as significant a gain because we test all processors with reasonable XMP settings applied as our stock configuration in reviews.

The fact that Arrow Lake couldn't match the gaming performance of Intel's own prior-gen Raptor Lake Refresh chips was one of the most disappointing aspects for enthusiasts. That still remains the case; the Core i9-14900K is now 6.5% faster than the 285K, whereas it was 9% faster in our prior testing (with both at DDR5-7200). That change isn't enough to drastically change the value equation between the Intel chips.

The situation also remains rough in comparison to AMD's competing models — the 285K is now about 3% slower than the Ryzen 9 9950X, roughly halving the distance between the two and bringing it closer to a draw, but the gaming-optimized X3D chips continue to dominate by almost absurd amounts. Here, the much less expensive Ryzen 7 9800X3D and its premium counterpart, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, still hold a 30%+ lead in gaming, so it remains a no-contest if you're strictly focused on gaming performance.

Despite the addition of new fabric tweaks and support for up to DDR5-8000, we still recommend that most users stick with DDR5-7200 — stepping up to DDR5-8000 incurs a significant cost for only about 1% more performance.

Overall, the new 200S Boost feature doesn't alter the competitive landscape, but it does provide an easy-to-use option for less-advanced users to gain a few extra percentage points of performance. The addition of warranty coverage for damage associated with the limited XMP memory or fabric overclocking is nice, but moderate memory overclocking is typically fairly safe in either case.

Intel is expected to officially announce the 200S Boost feature tomorrow, we'll follow up with further details as warranted.

Die shots of AMD's 16-core Zen 5c CCD used in its latest EPYC 9005 series server processors have been exposed, revealing clear differences compared to AMD's previous-generation Zen 4c CCDs. Posted by HXL on X, photos of AMD's 16-core 3nm Zen 5c CCD expose a long row of two banks of cores flanking a 32MB layer of L3 cache in the middle of the die.

AMD's Zen 5c dies are substantially longer than its vanilla Zen 5 CCD, measuring 5.7 mm by 14.83 mm. Zen 5, by contrast, measures 7.4mm by 11.26mm. The extra length was added to accommodate the additional cores each Zen 5c CCD contains, while simultaneously enabling all cores to share a single unified L3 cache, making Zen 5c AMD's first compact core architecture to sport a single-CCX design.

Click "see more" to see the die shots:

Shipping documents sourced from NBD.ltd purport that Intel might switch to the LGA1954 platform for its next-generation Nova Lake processors on desktop (via Olrak). This is accompanied by PCH tooling likely intended for the 900-series chipsets. Importantly, these listings do not indicate an imminent launch, especially since Nova Lake has officially been confirmed as a 2026 product.

Nova Lake is officially a part of Intel's product family, set to supersede Arrow Lake next year. Preliminary silicon configurations allege two clusters of eight Coyote Cove P-cores and 16 Arctic Wolf E-cores, complemented by four Low-Power Efficient (LPE) cores in the SoC Tile, adding up to 52 hybrid cores. Intel's engineers explore numerous design strategies, so whether this ambitious 52-core project will ever see the light of day is unclear.

The information within the manifests implies that Intel is actively distributing LGA1954 testing hardware to its global facilities. Specifically, these are not full-fledged motherboards but appear to be some form of a specialized interposer to test voltage regulation for the upcoming platform. Either way, these kits are designated for "NVL-S", the shorthand for Nova Lake Desktop.

Several new Ryzen 9000 Threadripper CPUs have been spotted at trade data aggregator NBD.ltd, thanks to Everest at X. These entries include 64-core, 16-core, and 12-core models, which are reportedly actively being shipped to different facilities, likely for validation and testing. This development does not indicate an imminent launch but rather suggests these CPUs are likely in their final development stages. It's best to approach this leak with some skepticism. Either way, we're still missing a few models, but every leak adds another piece to the Threadripper puzzle.

The Ryzen 9000 Threadripper family, codenamed "Shimada Peak", is set to be built using AMD's latest Zen 5 microarchitecture. As the core and cache configuration per CCD remains consistent with Zen 4, we can infer the flagship will offer up to 96 cores / 192 threads (12 CCDs). This would also mean a total of 384MB of L3 cache (32MB per CCD) and 96MB of L2 cache (1MB per core). There's a usual one-year cadence between AMD's desktop/server and HEDT/workstation counterparts, so Shimada Peak might be set for a reveal at Computex or later in the second half of 2025.

The leaked CPUs we're looking at today are the Threadripper 9985WX with 64 cores, the Threadripper 9955WX with 16 cores, and the Threadripper 9945WX with 12 cores. There is no mention of the premier Ryzen Threadripper 9995WX with (expected) 96 cores, but we'll keep our eyes peeled in the future.

One might find it surprising to see that AMD is offering consumer-level core counts with its top-tier Threadripper family. But this is not new, as similar options have existed in the past as well. These models provide access to high PCIe lane counts, plenty of memory channels, along with enterprise management options, for users who don't need much CPU throughput (like AI), without breaking the bank. You also get the advantage of higher boost clocks; we can see a 200 MHz delta between the existing 7945WX and 7995WX options.

These lower-cost models also make more sense once you factor in the fact that most commercial licenses are billed on a per-core basis.

Like their predecessors, the new 12-core 9945WX and the already leaked 24-core 9965WX are likely to utilize CCDs with several cores disabled (6-active out of 8-total), which can introduce interlink latencies. In this case, the 9965WX might be slower than a theoretical three-CCD option with all eight cores intact.

In terms of compatibility, these products should be drop-in replacements for AMD's in-vogue sTR5-based motherboards. Even though the documents mention SP6, they're likely referring to sTR5: a physically similar but electrically distinct derivative of SP6 featuring 4,844 landing pads. We can expect to hear more about these processors at Computex or later this year.

GPU Benchmarks Introduction

Tom's Hardware exhaustively benchmarks every GPU to find out which are worthy of our list of the best graphics cards. Our GPU benchmarks hierarchy ranks current and previous generation graphics cards by performance. Whether it's playing games, running artificial intelligence workloads, or doing professional video editing, your graphics card typically plays the biggest role in determining performance — even the best CPUs for gaming take a secondary role.

Our 2026 GPU Hierarchy testing spans three generations of Nvidia and AMD graphics cards, as well as Intel's Arc B-series GPUs.

Our testing has been made easier by the fact that no truly new gaming GPUs have been introduced in almost a year. If you haven't already upgraded your graphics card after the GeForce RTX 50-series and Radeon RX 9000-series launches in 2025, well, you're still looking at the exact same products now.

AMD did make its formerly China-only Radeon RX 9070 GRE available globally after Computex 2026, but in our review, we found that $549 product to be too expensive given the level of performance it delivers and the compromises made to hit its price point. Check out that coverage for all the details.

Most of the products we recommend remain at elevated prices compared to their MSRPs, but this is just life in mid-2026. It's admittedly cold comfort, but unless you're shopping for an RTX 5090, graphics card prices haven't risen much more than they already did earlier this year.

Compared to the doubling or tripling of prices we've seen for RAM kits and SSDs in 2026 versus last year, a GPU upgrade remains a relatively affordable (and self-contained) option, either as a boost for an existing PC or part of an all-new parts list.

Let's dive into our ranking of GPUs past and present so you can figure out how all those cards stack up.

Our full GPU hierarchy using traditional rendering (aka rasterization) comes first, and below that we have our separate ray tracing hierarchy. We've also mashed up these results into one overarching ranking for the complete pictures.

The results are all collected at native resolution, without enabling DLSS, FSR, or XeSS upscaling or frame generation.

As a brief refresher of the cards in this version of our hierarchy, Nvidia's cutting-edge Blackwell architecture and its DLSS 4 suite of tech upgrades the quality of both upscaling and ray reconstruction on RTX 50-series GPUs. It also adds Multi Frame Generation support. As of mid-2026, MFG can add anywhere from one to five AI-generated frames in between natively rendered ones.

Even if you're not into framegen, DLSS 4.5 upscaling and its transformer neural network architecture can offer a big boost in image quality at the same output resolution compared to earlier DLSS versions. That tech can benefit all GeForce RTX GPUs going back to the RTX 20-series, albeit at a heavier performance cost on older hardware compared to earlier DLSS versions.

Nvidia's Ada Lovelace architecture powers its prior-gen RTX 40-series cards. Ada introduced DLSS Frame Generation, which can double output frame rates in supported games. Ada cards don't benefit from MFG, though.

AMD's Radeon RX 9000 series cards, powered by its latest RDNA 4 architecture, get a big boost to both ray-tracing and AI capabilities with dedicated RT and matrix math accelerators. AMD uses those capabilities to enable its FSR 4 upscaler and its much-improved image quality in a small but growing range of titles, whether through native support or with driver-level overrides.

The FSR Redstone update last year brought ML Frame Generation to RX 9000-series cards. Like FSR 4.x upscaling, ML Frame Generation can be directly integrated in games or enabled through a driver override.

Meanwhile, the last-gen RDNA 3 architecture powers seven RX 7000-series seven desktop cards. Until very recently, RX 7000-series cards couldn't officially run FSR 4 upscaling, but an official version of that tech will be made available for those cards in July 2026.

Intel's Battlemage-powered Arc B580 and Arc B570 offer major improvements in performance and efficiency compared to its Alchemist architecture. Battlemage only serves the entry-level end of the graphics card market today. Intel introduced a larger Battlemage chip in the form of the Arc Pro B70 earlier this year, but that product is intended for AI and professional visualization, and it's priced like it.

On page two, you'll find our 2025-2026 test data for posterity. Page three has our 2024–2022 benchmark suite, which covers previous-generation GPUs running an older test suite and a Core i9-12900K. Page four has an even older 2020–2021 test suite with only raster games, running on a Core i9-9900K testbed. The legacy tables are no longer being actively updated. There's also the "Ancient Legacy GPU hierarchy" (without benchmarks, sorted by theoretical performance) for reference purposes.

The following tables sort everything solely by our performance-based GPU benchmarks, from fastest to slowest. Factors including real-world pricing, graphics card power consumption, overall efficiency, and features aren't factored into the rankings here. The latest results use an AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D testbed. Here are the tables and benchmark results — rasterization games first, then ray tracing games, and finally the content creation results.

GPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2026: The tests

For our latest GPU benchmarks, we test every card at a mix of high and ultra settings, depending on the game. We test across three resolutions: 1080p, 1440p, and 4K.

All the scores are expressed as percentages relative to the top-ranking 1080p ultra card, which is of course the GeForce RTX 5090.

Our 2026 test suite comprises the following games. 11 are raster titles, and of those, four have RT support. We test another four games that either require RT to run (DOOM: The Dark Ages and Indiana Jones and the Great Circle) or look best with RT (Assassin's Creed Shadows and Grand Theft Auto V Enhanced.)

• Black Myth Wukong (+RT)
• Alan Wake II (+RT)
• Apex Legends
• Counter-Strike 2
• Fortnite
• Arc Raiders
• Stalker 2
• DOOM: The Dark Ages (RT required)
• Grand Theft Auto V Enhanced (RT only)
• Marvel's Spider-Man 2 (+RT)
• Indiana Jones and the Great Circle (RT required)
• Marvel Rivals
• Assassin's Creed Shadows (RT only)
• Cyberpunk 2077 (+RT)
• Clair Obscur: Expedition 33

GPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2026: Raster gaming

The FPS score is the geometric mean (equal weighting) of all 11 games. Note that the specifications column links directly to our original review for the various GPUs.

Rasterization GPU Benchmarks, Key Findings

• Unsurprisingly, the RTX 5090 takes the top spot across the board, but prices remain stratospheric in mid-2026. It's also difficult to fully engage the GB202 GPU for pure raster gaming unless you're playing at 4K.
• Among current cards, the RX 9060 XT 8GB and RTX 5060 duke it out for the best performance per dollar at 1080p.
• The Radeon RX 9070 is the 1440p raster value champ. The recently introduced RX 9070 GRE sits just behind, and the RTX 5070 is a somewhat distant third.
• At 4K, the RX 9070 XT is the cheapest way to get into 4K 60 FPS native gaming. But the RX 9070 and RTX 5070 are also strong options among current GPUs if you're willing to enable a dash of upscaling.

Overall, if you're only interested in native raster gaming, Radeons are a strong choice in 2026. But Nvidia offers superior DLSS 4.5 upscaling and Multi Frame Generation support across all RTX 50-series cards, which makes matching your GPU's performance to your monitor's refresh rate a snap.

FSR 4.x upscaling isn't on par with DLSS 4.5 yet, and FSR ML Frame Generation is limited to a 2x framerate boost where it's available.

Rasterization GPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

Remember that we're not including any upscaling or framegen results in the above table. DLSS, FSR, and XeSS offer differing image quality, and we want to keep things directly comparable.

Don't buy any of the cards at the top of our hierarchy without a high-refresh-rate 2560x1440 or 4K monitor to match. Even one of our best gaming CPUs, like the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, can only do so much when a powerful card becomes CPU-bound.

In general, if you're still running a 60 Hz fixed-refresh-rate monitor, it's entirely possible that you're not seeing all the frames your graphics card can generate. Practically any current-gen graphics card from the RTX 5060 on up is good enough for high-refresh-rate gaming at 1080p in 2026 even without upscaling or framegen, and the RTX 5070 or RX 9070 will give you the same experience at 1440p.

In this era of upscaling and framegen, a high-resolution monitor is no longer an obstacle to the best gaming experience. Upscalers work best with higher-than-1080p output resolutions, and the advent of the DLSS 4.5 upscaling model especially means that you can get both smooth performance and crisp image quality from surprisingly modest graphics cards.

But if you don't have a high-refresh-rate 1440p or 4K monitor to begin with, you can't take full advantage of the free boost to both performance and image quality that AI-powered upscaling offers, nor can you enjoy the full smoothness boost of framegen. Check out our list of the best gaming monitors for a potential upgrade if you're still rocking a 1080p 60 Hz display from the 2010s.

On to our 2026 raster results. Among currently available graphics cards, Blackwell rules the top three spots. The RX 9070 XT ends up fourth, just behind the potent (but much more expensive, as of June 2026) RTX 5070 Ti.

Moving into the midrange, the RX 9070's strong raster performance gives it the edge over the RTX 5070, but it's close. And the 5070 has the full arsenal of DLSS 4.5 features at its disposal in virtually every modern game.

Given the image quality and smoothness advantage of DLSS 4.5 upscaling and MFG, the 5070 got the nod in our most recent round of best graphics card picks after our 2026 retests.

The recently introduced RX 9070 GRE lands between the 5070 and the lower-end 5060 Ti and 9060 XT, a position for which Nvidia has no current-gen answer (and no easy path to one.) But AMD may have priced the GRE too high at $549, and we're already seeing big price drops on that product that might make it uniquely appealing in a market where the RTX 5060 Ti is its direct price competition.

The formerly midrange RTX 5060 Ti 16GB is hopelessly overpriced for the performance it offers in mid-2026, and the formerly somewhat affordable 8GB model is also selling for elevated prices now, making the entire 5060 Ti family impossible to recommend.

The RX 9060 XT 16GB holds down the entry-midrange 16GB position by itself, and its $459 price tag isn't so absurd as to make it un-recommendable. But as RX 9070 GREs start going on sale for $500-ish, the step up is going to look mighty tempting.

As we move further down the stack, the $300-ish Arc B580 represents Intel's best card right now, but it remains very much a budget part in mid-2026, trading blows with the RTX 3060 Ti and RTX 4060. The only reason it lands as high as it does in our results is that its 12GB of VRAM prevents its performance from totally plummeting at 4K, as it does for those older 8GB cards.

The RTX 5060 is 24% faster than the Arc B580 at 1080p and 17% faster at 1440p, and its prices are proportionately higher. The scarce RX 9060 XT 8GB is a whole 30% faster at 1080p and 23% faster at 1440p, for similarly more money.

We don't think the potential longevity afforded by the B580's 12GB of VRAM is worth the massive performance tradeoff versus current-gen 8GB GPUs. Save up a few more bucks and grab an RTX 5060 or RX 9060 8GB instead (and enjoy the more widely adopted DLSS 4.5 or FSR 4 versus XeSS while you're at it).

The $250 Arc B570 is still a good value in mid-2026, and as the only modern, decent graphics card available for (well) under $300, it's still worth a look if you can't stretch to an RTX 5050. But recent software ills that took months to fix have led us to consider it more of a gamble than a product worthy of a recommendation, even though those issues did eventually get corrected.

Ray Tracing GPU Benchmarks 2026

For 2026, we're testing a range of RT titles that present a progressively more difficult workload to the GPUs under test.

Grand Theft Auto V Enhanced, DOOM: The Dark Ages, and Indiana Jones and the Great Circle are all relatively lightweight RT titles that will run on a wide range of RT-ready hardware. Spider-Man 2, Cyberpunk 2077, and Assassin's Creed Shadows represent greater challenges to compute resources, VRAM, or both. And Black Myth Wukong and Alan Wake II still bring even the most powerful graphics cards to their knees at native resolutions.

Our results for those more demanding games represent more of a jumping-off point for upscaling and framegen rather than native performance. But lighter RT titles mean that you can explore the differences in image quality that ray tracing offers without crushing your GPU flat.

In any case, graphics cards at the top of our RT tests are ready for practically any RT game. But as you'll see, that's still quite the high bar to clear in 2026.

Ray Tracing GPU Benchmarks, Key Findings and Notes

• The RTX 5090 really comes into its own with RT enabled, as expected.
• AMD's RX 9070 XT outperforms the RX 7900 XTX in our RT tests, showing that the ray-tracing improvements in RDNA 4 deliver.
• Even with those improvements, the RX 9070 XT can only manage a tie with the RTX 4070 Ti with RT in play, coming in eighth place overall.
• Maintaining 60 FPS in RT titles (as a good foundation for upscaling and framegen enhancements) is a very tall order. Among recent products, you'll want:
  • an RTX 5060 Ti 16GB, RTX 5070, or RX 9070 GRE to handle ~60 FPS RT at 1080p without running out of VRAM
  • An RTX 4070, an RTX 5070 or RX 9070 at 1440p, or an RX 9070 XT or RTX 5070 Ti for the best possible experience
  • An RTX 5080, RTX 4090, or RTX 5090 at 4K

Ray Tracing GPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

The RTX 5090 and RTX 4090 lead our RT results. But if you want to enjoy high-end RT without a 4090- or 5090-sized bankroll, the RTX 5070 Ti proves itself as the last card with a reasonable price-to-performance ratio before things get crazy.

The 5070 Ti leads the RX 9070 XT by a wide margin in our RT tests, and it's anywhere from 10%-15% behind the absurdly overpriced RTX 5080 across the board. But if you want the absolute best RT performance possible without stepping up to a 4090 or 5090, the extra cash for a 5080 is your best — and only — option.

That said, you should really explore DLSS 4.5 upscaling and MFG on the 5070 Ti before spending big to step up to a 5080.

The RX 9070 XT remains AMD's fastest RT GPU, outpacing the 7900 XTX across all tested resolutions. It leads the RDNA 3 halo card by about 10% across the board, which is an impressive generational leap considering its 33% deficit in CUs versus the XTX.

But the 9070 XT can only trade blows with the RTX 4070 Ti and RTX 5070 with Nvidia competition in the picture. It beats out the 5070 at 1080p and 1440p, but DLSS 4.5 upscaling and MFG give Blackwell gamers more flexible options for boosting performance with only minimal impact to image quality versus both RDNA 4 (and Ada).

Of course, the RX 9070 XT has FSR 4 upscaling and framegen at its disposal in compatible titles, but support for those features isn't as widespread as DLSS.

Meanwhile, the RX 9070 comes in slightly behind the RTX 5070 at 1080p and 1440p for RT. Even though its 16GB of VRAM prevents the 9070's 4K RT performance from completely nosediving, the average frame rate at that resolution isn't high enough to make it a 4K RT choice.

At 1080p, the RX 9070 GRE presents an intriguing RT option for Radeon gamers, delivering a near-60-FPS average baseline that would make a great FSR 4 foundation. But its 12GB of VRAM quickly becomes a liability at 1440p versus the 9070, and 4K is out of the question.

Overall, our demanding 2026 RT test suite shows that the bar for entry to a good RT experience remains high, especially as elevated prices on the RTX 5060 Ti 16GB mean that the first "real" RT-ready Blackwell card at 1080p and up is the RTX 5070. And on the Radeon side, you really want an RX 9070 GRE or RX 9070 for the best experience.

Test Setup and Hardware for GPU Benchmarks

We've used several different PCs for our testing over the years. The latest update switches to an AMD Zen 5 processor: the unparalleled Ryzen 7 9800X3D and its 3D V-Cache-enhanced performance.

Here are the specifications for our latest GPU test PC.

Tom's Hardware 2026 GPU Benchmarks Testbed

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
CPU Cooler: Thermalright Phantom Spirit 120 SE
Memory: G.Skill Trident Z5 32GB (2x16GB) DDR5-6000 CL30
Motherboard: Asus TUF Gaming X670E-Plus Wifi
SSD: Inland Performance Plus 4TB
PSU: MSI MPG Ai1600TS 1600W

We test across the three most common gaming resolutions, 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, using a mix of high and ultra settings, depending on the title. Where possible, we use 'reference' cards for all of these tests, like Nvidia's Founders Edition models and AMD's reference designs. Most midrange and lower GPUs don't get reference models, however, and in some cases we only have factory-overclocked cards for testing. We do our best to select cards that are close to the reference specs in such cases.

For each graphics card, we follow the same testing procedure. We run one pass of each benchmark to "warm up" the GPU after launching the game, then perform our actual test runs across each resolution.

We carefully review our test data and check for anomalies. For example, we always expect the RTX 5080 to be faster than the RTX 5070 Ti. If it's not, and we're not in a CPU limited situation, we'll recheck both cards to ensure that our standings our accurate. We also check and retest in cases of subtler issues, as when a transient hitch or frame-time spike causes a large dip in 1% low FPS.

Due to the length of time required for testing each GPU, updated drivers and game patches inevitably come out that can impact performance. We periodically retest a few sample cards to verify our results are still valid, and if not, we go through and retest the affected game(s) and GPU(s). We may also add games to our test suite over time, if one comes out that is popular and conducive to testing. See what makes a good game benchmark for our selection criteria.

GPU Benchmarks: Individual Game Charts

The above tables provide a summary of performance, but for those that want to see the individual game charts, for both the standard and ray tracing test suites, we've got those as well. These charts only cover current-gen GPUs for readability.

These charts are up to date as of June 2026.

GPU Benchmarks — 1080p

GPU Benchmarks — 1440p

GPU Benchmarks — 4K

GPU Benchmarks — Power, Clocks, and Temperatures

Most of our discussion has focused on performance, but for those interested in power and other aspects of the GPUs, here are the appropriate charts. We'll run these from highest to lowest settings, as 4K ultra tends to be the most strenuous workload on most of these GPUs.

If you're looking for the legacy GPU hierarchy, head over to page two! We moved it to a separate page to help improve load times in our CMS as well as for the main website. And if you're looking to comment on the GPU benchmarks hierarchy, head over to our forums and join the discussion!

Choosing a Graphics Card

Choosing a Graphics Card

Choosing a Graphics Card

Which graphics card do you need? To help you decide, we created this GPU benchmarks hierarchy, comprising 48 GPUs from three generations of hardware for Nvidia and AMD and also including Intel's Battlemage cards. Not surprisingly, the fastest cards are using the latest GPU architectures, though they're not always a major upgrade over the prior generation.

Of course, it's not just about playing games. Many applications use the GPU for other work. But a good graphics card for gaming will typically do equally well in complex GPU computational workloads. Buy one of the top cards and you can run games at high resolutions and frame rates with the effects turned all the way up, and you'll be able to do content creation work as needed. Drop down to the middle and lower portions of the list and you'll need to start dialing down the settings to get acceptable performance in regular gameplay and GPU benchmarks.

If your main goal is gaming, you can't forget about the CPU. Getting the best possible gaming GPU won't help you much if your CPU is underpowered or many years out of date. So be sure to check out the Best CPUs for gaming page, as well as our CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy to make sure you have the right CPU for the level of gaming performance you're looking to achieve.

And don't forget about your monitor. Be sure to get a display whose refresh rate range matches the average frame rates of the graphics card that you want in the games that you play. Check out our list of the best gaming monitors for a starting point.

GPU Benchmarks from 2022–2024

Our 'legacy' GPU benchmarks used different hardware. Here are the details for the 2022–2024 configuration that used an Alder Lake 12900K CPU.

Tom's Hardware 2022–2024 GPU Testbed

Intel Core i9-12900K
MSI Pro Z690-A WiFi DDR4
Corsair 2x16GB DDR4-3600 CL16
Crucial P5 Plus 2TB
Cooler Master MWE 1250 V2 Gold
Cooler Master PL360 Flux
Cooler Master HAF500
Windows 11 Pro 64-bit

We have upgraded our test system and changed our test suite for 2025, effectively resetting our benchmarking and rankings. However, the old data — collected using a Core i9-12900K PC — remains valid. We aren't testing new GPUs with the old testbed, as that would double the time required for what is already a lengthy process, but we felt it would be helpful to some to keep the final data available.

We also had an interim system that never quite got wrapped up, which had a Core i9-13900K Raptor Lake CPU. Our original CPU was one of the impacted units that failed over time, which explains in retrospect why so much of the data felt a bit questionable. Thankfully, the new Ryzen 7 9800X3D system seems to be running just fine. Here are the 12900K results.

For these GPU benchmarks, we tested nearly every GPU released between 2016 and 2024, plus a few extras. All graphics cards were tested at 1080p medium and 1080p ultra, and we sorted the table by the 1080p ultra results. Where it made sense, we also tested at 1440p ultra and 4K ultra. All the scores are scaled relative to the top-ranking 1080p ultra card of the time, which in our suite is the RTX 4090 — especially at 4K and 1440p.

The above summary charts show the relative performance of the cards we've tested across the past several generations of hardware at 1080p ultra — swipe through the above gallery if you want to see the 1080p medium, 1440p, and 4K ultra images. There are a few missing options (e.g., the GT 1030, RX 550, and several Titan cards), but otherwise it's basically complete. Note that we also have data in the table below for some of the other older GPUs.

The eight games used for our standard GPU benchmarks hierarchy are Borderlands 3 (DX12), Far Cry 6 (DX12), Flight Simulator (DX11 Nvidia, DX12 AMD/Intel), Forza Horizon 5 (DX12), Horizon Zero Dawn (DX12), Red Dead Redemption 2 (Vulkan), Total War Warhammer 3 (DX11), and Watch Dogs Legion (DX12). The fps score is the geometric mean (equal weighting) of the eight games. Note that the specifications column links directly to our original review for the various GPUs.

*: GPU couldn't run all tests, so the overall score is slightly skewed at 1080p ultra.

While the RTX 4090 does technically take first place at 1080p ultra, it's the 1440p and especially 4K numbers that impress. It's less than 2% faster than the RTX 4080 Super at 1080p ultra, but that increases to 9% at 1440p and then 25% at 4K. Also note that the fps numbers in our table incorporate both the average and minimum fps into a single score — with the average given more weight than the 1% low fps.

Again, keep in mind that we're not including any ray tracing or DLSS results in the above table, as we use the same test suite with the same settings on all current and previous generation graphics cards. Since only RTX cards support DLSS (and RTX 40-series if you want DLSS 3), that would drastically limit which cards we could directly compare. You can see DLSS 2/3 and FSR 2 upscaling results in our RTX 4070 review if you want to check out how the various upscaling modes can help.

The RTX 4090 comes at a steep price, though on paper it's not that much worse than the previous generation RTX 3090. In fact, we'd say it's a lot better in some respects, as the 3090 was only a minor improvement in performance compared to the 3080 at the time of launch, but with more than double the VRAM. Nvidia pulled out all the stops with the 4090, increasing the core counts, clock speeds, and power limits to push it beyond all contenders. There are two problems with the 4090, however: It's not available at MSRP any longer, due to demand from the AI sector — it often costs $2,000 or more — and there are still concerns with pulling 450W of power over the 16-pin connector.

Stepping down from the RTX 4090, the RTX 4080 Super and RX 7900 XTX trade blows at higher resolutions, while CPU bottlenecks come into play at 1080p. We'll be switching our testbed in the near future, with the current results from our 13900K testing in the charts at the bottom of the page.

Outside of the latest releases from AMD and Nvidia, the RX 6000- and RTX 30-series chips still perform reasonably well and if you're using such a card, there may not be any need to upgrade at present. Intel's Arc GPUs also fall into this category and are something of a wild card.

We've been testing and retesting GPUs periodically, and the Arc chips running the latest drivers now complete all of our benchmarks without any major anomalies. (Minecraft was previously a problem, though Intel has finally sorted that out.) They're not great on efficiency, but overall performance and pricing for the A750 is quite good.

Turning to the previous generation GPUs, the RTX 20-series and GTX 16-series chips end up scattered throughout the results, along with the RX 5000-series. The general rule of thumb is that you get one or two "model upgrades" with the newer architectures, so for example the RTX 2080 Super comes in just below the RTX 3060 Ti, while the RX 5700 XT basically matches the newer and less expensive RX 6600 XT.

Go back far enough and you can see how modern games at ultra settings severely punish cards that don't have more than 4GB VRAM. We've been saying for a few years now that 4GB was just scraping by, and these days we'd avoid buying anything with less than 8GB of VRAM — 12GB or more is the minimum we'd want with a mainstream GPU, and 16GB or more for high-end and above. Old cards like the GTX 1060 3GB and GTX 1050 actually failed to run some of our tests, which skews their results a bit, even though they do better at 1080p medium.

Now let's switch over to the ray tracing hierarchy.

Ray Tracing GPU Benchmarks 2022–2024

Enabling ray tracing, particularly with demanding games like many of those we're using in our DXR test suite, can cause framerates to drop off a cliff. We're testing with "medium" and "ultra" ray tracing settings. Medium generally means using the medium graphics preset but turning on ray tracing effects (set to "medium" if that's an option; otherwise, "on"), while ultra turns on all of the RT options at more or less maximum quality.

Because ray tracing is so much more demanding, we're sorting these results by the 1080p medium scores. That's also because the RX 6500 XT, RX 6400, and Arc A380 basically can't handle ray tracing even at these settings, and testing at anything more than 1080p medium would be fruitless.

The five ray tracing games used are Bright Memory Infinite, Control Ultimate Edition, Cyberpunk 2077, Metro Exodus Enhanced, and Minecraft — all of these use the DirectX 12 / DX12 Ultimate API. The fps score is the geometric mean (equal weighting) of the five games, and the percentage is scaled relative to the fastest GPU in the list, which again is the GeForce RTX 4090.

If you want to see what the future may hold with ray tracing, check out our Alan Wake 2 benchmarks where the full path tracing barely manages playable performance even with upscaling on non-Nvidia GPUs. However, and this is a critical point, the number of games where RT truly makes a striking difference in visuals is extremely limited. For most games, we still feel running pure rasterization rendering makes more sense.