Noctua is working on a long-term solution to the annoyances of CPU thermal paste, and it might just be onto something. Although thermal pads and certain graphite pads have been a fringe alternative to thermal paste for the best CPUs, for the most part, we're all stuck with messy and often impractical paste that's wrought with opportunity for human error.

At Computex last week, Noctua shared its vision for the future, which it calls the NT-CP1 Carbice Carbon Nanotube Thermal Pad. That's a bit of a mouthful, and that's because this little workaround takes some explaining. Essentially, instead of squirting out some thermal paste on the face of your CPU to mush down underneath your cooler, you'd instead place down one of Noctua's tiny wafers, and you wouldn't need to touch it ever again if you didn't want to.

Noctua has designed its thermal paste alternative as a long-term solution. Unlike thermal paste, it isn't going to dry, crack, or need replacing over time, so if you're not really interested in upgrading your CPU (ever), then this might actually be a better alternative for you.

Noctua has tested the Carbon Nanotube Thermal Pad for up to 100K thermal cycles, saying that it'll "outlive your system" without dropping its cooling ability. Where the performance of thermal paste degrades over time, Noctua found that its new solution takes around 2,000 cycles to reach maximum efficiency, but then stays at that level from then on. By comparison, Noctua says 10,000 cycles is when thermal paste typically starts to really see performance drop-offs, but that isn't the case with carbon nanotubes.

The reason the new thermal pad is so long lasting is that it uses the same nanoscale polymer design as the cooling solutions in satellites and other space-grade technology - ie, why it's prepped to outlive your system.

Within the thermal pad (which is very thin; it looked like a small patch of seaweed up-close), there are vertically aligned carbon nanotube "forests". These are supported by an aluminium backbone that makes them more robust than similar graphite alternatives we've seen in the past. A nanoscale polymer coating then makes the pad non-conductive, and also prevents slipping during installation - a constant bugbear with thermal paste when you secure a CPU cooler on top of it.

The only reason the Carbice pad has a "break-in" period is that it takes some time for the polymer layer to activate and wet the contact surfaces on either side. Then, the carbon nanotubes slowly "wick" into the surfaces of your cooler and CPU. Once these are properly activated, they then help to funnel the heat transfer process to keep your processor working efficiently.

As you can imagine, something like this would be far easier to install than thermal paste that can very easily be a messy job that can go wrong. Slip, or somehow drop thermal paste onto your motherboard or into your CPU socket, and you could be looking at some expensive problems. With a pad that you simply peel and stick, you also don't need to enter the ancient debate of how much thermal paste you should use, and in what pattern you should lay it down.

The current ETA for Noctua's new thermal paste alternative is September 2026 and is tailored for AMD's AM4 and AM5 processors; meanwhile, AMD itself also had its own version of a thermal pad like this that it was handing out at its Computex booth, so we could see this as a more commonly used solution in years to come.

For now though, I'd only really recommend certain PC builders look into this type of cooling for their CPU. For starters, if you know you're not going to be upgrading for a long, long time, ie, if you have a top-rate, flagship processor and you don't really have an upgrade path, then look into Noctua's NT-CP1.

On the other hand, my tour guide at the Noctua Computex booth told me one of these will set you back roughly ~£20/$25 (although this is unconfirmed at the time of writing), and you only get one wafer in a package. Moreover, these aren't reusable, so if you do unpeel it from your cooler so you can upgrade something or swap out a motherboard, then you'll need to pay that same amount again.

Meanwhile, thermal paste is a sub-$20 purchase, and even the smaller tubes will give you enough for a couple of CPU upgrades and installations. One thing I like about modern CPU architecure, especially the AMD sockets this cooling solution has been designed for, is that there's more availability for upgrading down the road. AMD has just extended support for the AM5 platform until 2029 at least, so chances are, you're bound to see a processer that could outperform and offer more value for money than your current one before too long.

If you're old school, and you don't want to upgrade your desktop components for as long as possible, or you're just happy with what you've got, a thermal pad like this might be a better option for you. If not, I'd be sticking to traditional paste for any Prime Day PC deals you're hunting for this month.

• check thermal paste prices at Amazon

PC builders should also seek out the best gaming PCs, the best graphics card, and the best RAM for gaming.

Looks like the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE could make its way outside of China, as global packaging for the mid-range graphics card has leaked. The specific Sapphire Pulse model's box uses English branding and text, but does appear to be the specific 12GB "Golden Rabbit Edition" card that was previously a regional exclusive.

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE image shared by Videocards doesn't come with any revelations. Yes, the box design is slightly different from the Chinese version since it's got English text, but that aside, we're still looking at the same retail packaging that houses a card with a Navi 48 GPU, 12GB GDDR6 RAM, and boost clock speeds up to 2790 MHz.

I should note that despite the fancy "GRE" moniker, this version of the card packs less of a punch than the standard AMD Radeon RX 9070. That's to be expected given the latter boasts 16GB VRAM, a wider 256-bit memory bus (versus 192-bit), and a cut-down version of that aforementioned Navi 48 silicon. However, it is a much closer match to the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070, and the extra pressure could help influence lower prices.

Ideally, I'd like to see the RX 9070 GRE launch for a chunk lower than its non-rabbit friend's MSRP. In theory, you should be able to grab a vanilla third-party GPU for $550, but the cheapest model I can see at Amazon right now is the ASRock Challenger for $599.99. That's technically the base price for the beefier Radeon RX 9070 XT, but that will unfortunately set you back $699.99. Those figures are less than at Newegg, where you're paying over $600 for even the base non-XT model.

AMD sometimes likes to release Chinese-exclusive cards globally, so there's nothing unprecedented about giving the GRE a worldwide launch. I'd also take the leak with the usual grain of salt since a packaging mockup isn't direct evidence of the latter, but the timing is curious. A mid-range GPU option for say $500 could help combat any Nvidia variants should they rear their head this Summer, and I suspect Super contenders won't be hitting those sorts of prices.

• Graphics cards at Amazon
• Gaming PCs at Amazon

Building a new rig? Swing by the best CPU for gaming and the best gaming RAM for crucial components.

I'm not exactly surprised that an AMD Radeon RX 9050 is apparently coming. Sure, we'd ideally be getting more SKUs in the middle tier at affordable prices with more than 8GB VRAM, but this latest graphics card seemingly has an edge over the RX 9060 when it comes to core count.

According to a report by Videocardz, the AMD Radeon RX 9050 matches the RX 9060 XT with a Navi 44 GPU and 2,048 Stream Processors. Effectively, it's acting like the non-XT version doesn't exist by borrowing specs from its beefier sibling rather than using a 1,792-core Navi 44 XL.

The catch is that you're getting the same 8GB GDDR6 VRAM and 128-bit memory bus as the RX 9060, although it's got PCIe 5.0 x16 support. Naturally, the clock speeds for this unannounced card are lower too, with insider information suggesting a 1,920 MHz game clock and 2,600 MHz boost clock speeds, respectively. For context, the RX 9060 XT offers up to 3,130 MHz, so you may feel a difference in some scenarios.

Other specs like board power are currently unknown, but the recommended PSU is 440W. I'd like to think AMD will aim for the lowest wattage possible with its base model, since it'll make an ideal GPU for tiny builds off the back of the Steam Machine. Hell, if it does end up mostly having a core edge over the RX 9060, packs the same 8GB VRAM, and can just about hit 4K 60fps leveraging FSR 4, I might make my own DIY Valve box.

Before you get all hyped up about that, though, I need you to chow down on that usual grain of salt. Videocardz specifies that the specs are "preliminary" and come from a single source, and GPU makers love to change their specs plans. That said, this could be the company trying to make a card specifically geared to mini gaming PCs that would theoretically rival the upcoming Steam Machine and even Xbox Project Helix, and we'll ultimately know if that's the case when more specs land.

If it's more on Valve's box you're after, a reservation page code suggests four Steam Machine bundles might be available at launch, which could save you grabbing it with the controller.

• More Radeon GPUs at Amazon
• More graphics cards at Amazon

Prefer to play on the go? Swing by the best gaming handhelds for portable PCs and more.

AMD is still running in the best graphics card race, but it's not quite on the same track as Nvidia's Multi-Frame Generation GPUs. However, changes to the tech company's ADLX FidelityFX SDK imply that its strategy of sticking to standard Frame Gen could soon change, in turn opening its cards up to the same "fake frames" criticism as its AI-obsessed rival.

The new additions to AMD's ADLX 1.5 (Device Library eXtra) SDK used to control new GPU and hardware changes add a feature dubbed "IADLX3DFidelityDXFrameGenUpgradeRatioOption" (via Wccftech). An extremely catchy name indeed, but it refers to an interface that provides "ratio" options via an interface.

That hints towards an option to change the number of AI frames generated using FidelityFX Super Resolution to more than just two, effectively adding in the "multi" element that arguably gives Nvidia's graphics cards, like the GeForce RTX 5080, a performance edge. The GPUOpen page also suggests that Adrenalin driver releases will mean FSR 3.1.4-supported games can tap into Multi-Frame Generation, but you might require an RDNA 4 card with Machine Learning capabilities.

Effectively, whether older Radeon GPUs like 7900 XT and XTX will gain Multi-Frame Generation support remains to be seen. Various DIY projects and third-party apps like Lossless Scaling suggest the GPUs are capable, but it all boils down to caveats tied to potential latency.

The real question is whether PC players want Radeon GPUs to gain Multi-Frame Generation. If the AMD brand's subreddit is anything to go by, some fans of the cards are cautiously optimistic about the AI-powered tech, albeit signalling that existing frame pacing issues should be ironed out first.

Others still seem to be on the side that sees the lack of MFG on Radeon as a selling point. Even players who are not actively against the tech have indicated they're not particularly interested in anything about standard x2 generation, and there's at least one mention of the phrases "AI slop" and "Fake Frames" in there. Whether you think those accusations of the tech are warranted, it's still a narrative that's driving some players towards AMD cards over Nvidia options, and if the red team launches the feature before addressing other existing driver issues, the response could be particularly frosty.

• More graphics cards at Amazon
• Desktop PCs at Amazon

Building a new rig? Swing by the best RAM for gaming and best CPUs for crucial components. If you'd rather head outside, check out the best gaming handhelds for portable PCs and more.

In the last few years, it really seems like increased competition in the CPU market has caught up to Intel. Not only has Team Blue been suffering from Raptor Lake PR issues, a lacklustre launch of the Intel Core Ultra line, but AMD has been firing on all cylinders and gaining a lot of momentum that has seen them take strides in the CPU for gaming market - at least as far as Steam Hardware Survey results and public opinion are concerned.

Intel now seems to be revitalised and refreshed to meet AMD's challenges though - and I'm not just talking about the brand's recent announcement of its refreshed Core Ultra Plus processors. In a recent interview with Club386, Intel's VP and GM of its enthusiast channel, Robert Hallock, said the thing I've personally been waiting to hear for years.

When asked if Intel might support its motherboard sockets for longer, and if he saw that as a possibility, he said: "I do. That’s it – I do".

"One thing I really would like users to understand," he added, "is that I, my team, we are ourselves, first and foremost, PC builders and enthusiasts. Every single one of us has built their own PC, games on that PC. That was not always the case at Intel.”

This could be huge; for Intel, for gamers and PC builders, and the implications could be huge for AMD and the CPU market at large. One of the biggest reasons, in my opinion, that AMD has been sweeping up some of Intel's market share in recent years is that it's much better at offering people a long-term investment.

AMD will release a new CPU socket and continue to support it with new generations of processors for years and years at a time. Conversely, a CPU generation for Intel has typically only lasted one or two waves of new releases.

If you're not up on your building processes for the best gaming PCs, let me put that in context. A new CPU socket means a new motherboard, which also means a new CPU. If Intel isn't giving you new CPUs for the socket you've already invested in, that means even more money spent to upgrade your rig - and with a new motherboard, that essentially means building a new one, not upgrading your current one. That's not ideal when one of the big draws of PC gaming is that you're supposed to have fewer console generation-style new platform purchases.

It's very much felt like Intel has been letting the business side of things and the need for increasing revenue take priority over offering people futureproofing and value for money. Not to mention that until recent years, AMD hasn't been that big of a competitor to Intel in the CPU market.

Last year, I reported that AMD represented over 40% of CPUs in the Steam Hardware Survey - and that was a big deal at the time. In reality, that being a big milestone for AMD shows just how much of a lead Team Blue has enjoyed, and with no serious competition until now, it's been able to control when people buy a new motherboard and CPU.

Meanwhile, AMD has supported its 2016 socket until very, very recently, and its 2022 socket is still being supported, outliving the Raptor Lake platform it was originally squared up against.

It seems like Intel is realizing this particular strategy is now working against them, as Hallock said: "There is a new product management team; there is a new business team; there is a new marketing team; there is a new engineering team for these gaming CPUs.

"And we are not ignorant of the feedback that comes in about our products. We watch it very closely… some of that feedback we can act on in a six-month time span, a year-long time span, a three-year time span. But we are listening, and that feedback matters quite a lot. It absolutely influences how we think about our products and our roadmap.”

Things certainly seem to be looking up already. I've certainly felt a difference in the way Intel is communicating with us gamers. In all of its recent announcements, things felt very tilted toward gamers, and I haven't heard any mention of AI at all, which is super refreshing. But even so, with the underwhelming launch of the LGA 1851 products, I didn't necessarily expect to see the Arrow Lake refresh actually happen. Especially because rumors have already been swirling around what Intel is moving on to thereafter, the LGA 1954 socket.

There have been a few whispers, as referenced by Club386, that the upcoming Nova Lake, Razer Lake, Titan, and Hammer Lake launches from Intel will all launch on that platform - which could be a massive way to show PC builders that Intel understands the need for longevity. Admittedly, that would be a huge departure from Intel's strategy, and it may dissuade people from investing in the LGA1854 platform for now.

Then again, it would match up with what Hallock is saying. I'd personally love to see Intel giving AMD a long-term battle instead of constantly shifting the playing field, but only time will tell.

For more on PC building, check the best RAM for gaming, the best DDR5 RAM deals, and the best graphics card.

AMD chose not to dish out a "flagship" Radeon offering that would compete with Nvidia's RTX 5090 for its most recent generation of graphics cards. Sure, the RX 9070 XT is pretty much the stand-in, and sure, there are conversations to be had about what being a "flagship" PC component even means in this day and age. But, like it or not, the best graphics card from AMD this generation isn't trying to pick a fight with Nvidia's top dog.

In an era of civil unrest at the state of modern graphics cards that are too reliant on AI upscaling, though, I started asking myself something.

How does AMD's last-gen flagship square up against the modern suite of current-gen offerings? Years ago now, I reviewed the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX. It was one of the first PC components I got to test out in my time here at GamesRadar+, and it blew my socks off. Amidst a pricing apocalypse, scalping, and Nvidia taking DLSS all the way to the bank, here was an alternative that offered massive 4K native performance with very few compromises.

On paper, this GPU is an absolute monster that stacks up against the 24GB of VRAM found inside the RTX 4090, a card that was honestly designed more for mining crypto than it was for your everyday gamer. In terms of native performance, this thing is still hard for any graphics card to match and, especially with the RTX 50 series relying so heavily on AI upscaling, I wondered if it would still be able to put modern rivals to shame.

Is a last-gen graphics card really going to be worth buying when newer alternatives with ongoing support exist? The RX 7900 XTX isn't part of AMD's current 90 Series lineup, so it doesn't have access to Redstone, the brand's latest iteration of frame generation. But with as much power as it has, does it really need that? My curiosity was piqued, and I wanted to find out how things compared.

Somewhere, somehow, AMD was able to hook me up with an XFX Merc310 Radeon RX 7900 XTX, so I got to work.

Turns out, off-paper, this thing is also a monster. It barely fits inside my Micro-ATX gaming PC. This particular model comes with its own Z-shaped bracket in the box because it really is that bulky. My case and fans combo doesn't even have room for that, but I made things work by using a smaller GPU bracket.

Once I managed to squeeze it into my NZXT H3 Flow case, I got to work. Was nostalgia for a review I did in the early days of this job getting the better of me, or is this graphics card still worth buying in today's PC market?

Performance

Seeing as it's the graphics card I had in my PC before running this experiment, I've made some direct comparisons to the Asus GeForce RTX 5070, but I'm aware there need to be some caveats mentioned here. In some ways, this isn't exactly a fair fight because the 5070 has 12GB of GDDR7 VRAM as opposed to the 7900 XTX's 21GB of GDDR6. In fact, all over the tale of the tape, the RTX 5070 is a much weaker card in terms of native 4K gaming performance, but that might not be such a big problem.

In some ways, the RTX 5070 is the epitome of the current slate of GPU competition from Nvidia. It was originally billed as an RTX 4090 successor (albeit with heavy, heavy influence on AI upscaling power to make that claim valid). But hey, if Nvidia wants that card to be known as a sequel to the RTX 4090, surely it should be able to beat AMD's last-gen 4090 rival?

My first test was more of a personal one, and less of a strict, technical benchmark. As someone with 2,600 hours in Hunt: Showdown, I wanted to see how this 7900 XTX would improve my quality of life in one of the games I play most regularly. With the 5070, playing at 4K, I had to use exclusively low settings and DLSS on balanced or performance to get a stable ~130fps.

I thought maybe a GPU with as much organic power as the 7900 XTX would be able to beat the RTX 5070 with medium settings, but I didn't realise just how big the performance gap was going to be. Using the same "low" settings without any use of AI upscaling through FSR, the 7900 XTX was already maxing out my monitor's 144Hz refresh rate.

In the end, I was able to put settings up to high, and with FSR working on Quality, I'm able to get roughly the same kinds of 143fps frame rates and graphical fidelity I've seen with the NZXT Player Three, which uses an RTX 5080. That's damn impressive for a multiplayer game that's doing a lot of technically demanding stuff through CryEngine.

But onto more formal benchmarks I went. Starting with 3DMark, I saw pretty sizeable leaps in scores from the RTX 5070 I had in my build previously.

In gaming benchmarks, I was surprised by just how sizeable performance boosts were over the RTX 5070 when multiframe generation wasn't in play. In all but one benchmark scenario I carried out across Cyberpunk and Black Myth Wukong, the 7900 XTX handily beat the 5070, and that was without using any frame gen tricks.

Don't get me wrong, MFG is a massive boon in the RTX 5070's favour, and probably something to consider in this day and age when buying a graphics card. But I feel the latency and ghosting that comes from cranking a weaker GPU's frame generation up in demanding games. For that reason, I'd prefer not to need it when playing a demanding game. With a native performing tank like the 7900 XTX, you're not going to subject yourself to that as much.

Seeing as Cyberpunk has essentially been developed for Nvidia cards, I still expected to see some victory for the RTX 5070. That wasn't the case, even with Ray Tracing switched on, which really goes to show how off-base Nvidia was to try to claim the 5070 was an RTX 4090 rival.

If you're on the fence about the specs mismatch between the RTX 5070 and the 7900 XTX, I hear you. While I can't give you benchmark comparisons from my own rig, I can tell you how the 7900XTX squares off against other current-gen GPUs that we've tested in other machines. These won't be quite so reliable as comparisons go, but they'll give you a ballpark.

Against the RTX 5080 (paired with a Ryzen 7 9800X3D) in the NZXT Player Three, scores in 3DMark aren't as bad as I thought they'd be. That rig scored 27,348 in Time Spy, 55,985 in Fire Strike, and 78.13 in Steel Nomad. Fire Strike comparisons there might seem more detached, but Time Spy in particular is a closer race than some might expect.

Where you'd lose out against the RTX 5080 is its higher ceiling with DLSS and multi-frame generation, but then again, that might not be a huge issue if you're not looking to crank up ray tracing for everything you play. On balance, the 7900 XTX's ray tracing benchmark scores in Cyberpunk aren't quite up to the 5080's standards. Again, tested in a different machine, the 5080 achieved 35 fps with Ray Tracing on and no DLSS assistance. But without Ray Tracing, just using 4K, maxed settings, the 7900 XTX was less than one frame per second off the 5080's score of 44 - that's not bad for native 4K performance that's two years behind, architecturally speaking.

I haven't been able to go hands-on with an RX 9070 XT yet, but we do have some benchmarks in our CyberPowerPC Ultra XT3D review. In Time Spy, the 7900 XTX actually outperformed the 9070 XT's score of 25,579. In the other two 3DMark tests, the 9070 XT was just able to sneak past with 51,234 in Fire Strike and 6961 in Steel Nomad.

And in Cyberpunk, results are surprisingly close, which goes to show just how powerful the 9070 XT is despite being a competitor to the RTX 5070 Ti. AMD's newer GPU scored 60fps with 4K, max settings. The 7900 XTX was only 14 frames shy of its younger rival when they were both using FSR (although now with Redstone frame generation, the 9070 will likely have a larger boost). Interestingly, with Ray Tracing and FSR switched on, the 7900 XTX still outperformed the 9070 XT by a matter of 10 frames per second. There's definitely still validity to the 7900 XTX in 2026 compared to its newer competition, but price is where things get tricky.

Price

One thing to note, beyond the raw performance numbers, is something that still wows me to this day.

A graphics card this powerful launched to the tune of $999 / £999. That was in 2022, when these components were still seeing inflated prices thanks to crypto mining and a supply chain shortage. While Nvidia was happy to squeeze the concept of an MSRP into some sort of optical illusion, AMD was still out here offering ridiculous native performance for a price that, while expensive, wasn't as obscene as Nvidia's "suggested" prices at the time.

Granted, getting a hold of an RX 7900XTX today is a bit trickier. There are a few brands that still have stock of this card, and prices for it, if you don't go refurbished or pre-owned, have gotten higher. In any case, things will only get worse from here on out.

From a quick glance at Newegg, US shoppers can get a refurbished Sapphire Pulse 7900 XTX for under MSRP, at $839 if you're willing to go refurbished. If not, I can see the Asus TUF model for $1,260 at Newegg - not bad during a RAMpocalypse where higher VRAM options that are still being manufactured are going to come under fire. A graphics card that's already manufactured, however, might not be so hard to come by at a reasonable price.

7900 XTXs from ASRock, MSI, and Gigabyte are still available at Newegg, but they tend to be above and beyond the price I'd be comfortable recommending at this point in time. I wouldn't pay more for this card than you would for an RTX 5080, which means the cut-off point is likely going to be the $1,350-$1400 mark.

For me, the easy solution if you're not seeing a price you like is to go pre-owned, open box, or refurbished. Pre-owned graphics cards are a lot more viable than pre-owned CPUs or even RAM and storage. Again, the spanner in the works is that the RX 9070 XT might be the more futureproofed option, even if the last-gen beast still wins out in a few places. The 9070 XT will have access to Redstone and future FSR updates, whereas the RX 7900 XTX likely won't get the same love.

It's certainly more difficult to recommend the RTX 5070 off the back of all this testing, especially if you're like me and would much rather have a native performer for 4K gaming as opposed to something that's reliant on DLSS to hit the same kinds of numbers. If you don't mind that so much, you can get an RTX 5070 slightly cheaper for between $600-$700 new. Again, while I would still recommend the 7900 XTX in 2026, I would maybe draw a line when you start to see a 9070 XT for cheaper.

Summing up

The Radeon RX 7900 XTX is every bit the native 4K beast it was when it launched. I'm certainly nostalgic for this graphics card, but I've been pleasantly surprised to see just how it's holding up in 2026. In fact, it makes me yearn for a generation of GPUs we never got. One that didn't rely so much on AI upscaling, and a field of competitors that had native performance at its heart. While I think DLSS and FSR are great tools, I do think reliance on them is spoiling optimization in games today.

Even if buying an RX 7900 XTX in 2026 is only going to be advisable between the pricing nooks and crannies of newer graphics cards, I still think this little case study shows that this GPU deserves some love, not to fade into obscurity as maybe the last AMD flagship we'll see for a while.

We didn't get a true 7900 XTX follow-up this generation, but I hope the 7900 XTX can continue to light the way for the future. It definitely seems as though the approach of native performance per dollar with the 7900 XTX informed the direction of the brand's stand-in flagship, the RX 9070 XT. With high demand and increased sales in the midst of the fake frames controversy, that approach, that legacy from the 7900 XTX, seems like it's paid off.

For a breakdown of more PC components, take a look at the best CPUs for gaming, the best RAM for gaming, and the best computer speakers.

Intel has had it rough in the desktop CPU market for a few years now, but it's just officially announcing a refresh of its most recent Core Ultra processors, and I think things might be starting to look up. A Core Ultra series refresh has been rumored for a little while now, but Intel is officially launching two new CPUs for gaming later this month, and they'll use the same LGA1851 motherboard socket as the original range.

Specifically, Intel has announced the new Intel Core Ultra 5 250K/KF Plus starting at $199 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K/KF Plus starting at $299. Both will launch later this month on March 26.

“With the new Intel Core Ultra 200S Plus desktop processors, Intel is proudly taking the first steps in a new era of enthusiast performance," said Robert Hallock, VP, Client Computing Group at Intel.

"First, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and Ultra 5 250K Plus are the fastest desktop gaming processors Intel has ever built. Second, they nearly double the content creation performance of our competitor. And, thirdly, they’re arriving with exciting new technologies that revolutionize the setup and optimization roadmap for Intel gaming platforms. These chips are a value that’s hard to beat,” he said.

The "exciting new technologies" Hallock is referring to here might just be Intel's best answer yet to the extra gaming and content creation performance of AMD's 3D V-cache CPUs. Until now, Intel has tried to combat this with E-cores and cramming its chips full of more threads and cores than the competition. Now, Intel is taking a different approach with a new Intel Binary Optimization Tool.

This is a first-of-its-kind technology that purportedly increases a CPU's instructions per cycle (IPC), even if a workload has been optimized for a different kind of processor, a game console, or an earlier architecture. In essence, this should increase the efficiency of Intel's processors when gaming and content creation by prioritising information that's being processed. Although it's hard to quantify from just a surface-level announcement, it's a promising tease that Intel is trying to lean into enthusiast-level gaming performance in an inventive way, as AMD has been.

Let's talk specs, though. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has 24 cores (8 performance and 16 efficiency), and 24 threads, which is up from 20 cores and 20 threads on the original Intel Core Ultra 7 265K. The refreshed model carries over the same 5.5GHz max turbo frequency as the original.

The more affordable Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also gains four cores from its older version, boosting up to 18 cores and 18 threads (6 performance and 12 efficiency). Both CPUs have seen a boost to their die-to-die frequency as well, which increases the CPU and memory controller speed, allowing for boosted gaming performance with less system latency overall for your gaming PC.

Intel has also said that while these new processors will share compatibility with all existing 800-series motherboards currently available, new 800-series chipset motherboard models will be arriving in 2026, including ones that enable support for 4-Rank CUDIMM memory, which Intel is catering to with this refreshed range of processors. Given we're in the middle of a RAM shortage, though, I doubt that will be top of anyone's priority list right now.

My take, as someone who's been watching the CPU market closely, is that this seems like a serious recommitment to the market Intel needs right now. Following its Raptor Lake volatility woes, Intel has been failing to capture the desires of gamers, which has been reflected in consistent losses to AMD (at least as far as Steam hardware surveys have consistently reported over the last year).

Intel's first crack at the Core Ultra CPU range fell a bit flat until firmware updates managed to boost gaming performance up to respectable levels, but AMD has still been winning out based on a commitment to supporting its motherboard ecosystems long-term.

For context, AMD's AM4 platform, which launched in 2016, has been supported with new, compatible products even in recent years, and on the current-gen AM5 platform, you can choose from three complete CPU families for a compatible processor. Meanwhile, Intel has consistently shown it wants to move on from each motherboard socket within one or two generations, and I think that's now harming them in terms of making gamers confident to invest in its platforms.

This new Core Ultra refresh certainly seems like it's coming from a revitalised and switched-on Team Blue, at least from the direction of these initial announcements. But I hope that this is the start of Intel realising it needs to offer longer-term upgrade routes and support for people adopting its motherboards. I can understand why the brand abandoned the LGA1700 ecosystem after the instability scandals, but I'm personally hoping this will be the first of many product refreshes on the LGA1851 socket.

Also check out the best graphics card, the best RAM for gaming, and the best computer speakers.

Good news, Asus ROG Ally owners: a Ryzen Z1 Extreme driver update just dropped. That means the former best gaming handheld contender hasn't been cut off from AMD patches quite yet, but I'm worried about the portable PC's future with the chipset within.

Concerns over AMD cutting off Ryzen Z1 Extreme handhelds from driver updates last week were originally tied to the Lenovo Legion Go S. According to a Korean customer rep, there are no plans to push graphics driver updates to that particular portable, and discussions among players eventually led me to check the last ROG Ally patch date.

On Monday, the last Ryzen Z1 Extreme update listed for the ROG Ally was August 6, 2025. However, Asus is now rolling patches out to handhelds as of February 24, so it's anything but officially cut off from chipset updates. That said, Videocardz notes that it still isn't receiving the same public branch as other Radeon devices, as it's using a 22.0.29 package rather than the Windows 11 32.0.23 build.

The whole situation is largely tied to how device makers are treating their Ryzen Z1 Extreme handhelds in 2026. This is the reason I suggested taking the original reports and online speculation with a grain of salt, as AMD hadn't officially announced any plans to end support for the 2023 chip. Instead, we're in a situation where players might have to rely on other update methods like generic builds or Windows updates (ew).

It's not ideal to see Ryzen Z1 Extreme updates slow down in any case, but it doesn't mean you should avoid portables with the chipset. In fact, if you can find a 2023 ROG Ally for the right price, I'd snatch it up, considering the Steam Deck is AWOL and the Xbox Ally is the only handheld I can find for under $600. I can't speak for the OG Legion Go yet since we don't know if the messaging from Lenovo Korea applies to other regions, but as mentioned above, there are still ways to technically update your drivers if worst comes to worst.

As a handheld reviewer, I'm bracing for a pretty rough 2026 thanks to RAMageddon and other price-hindering factors. I wouldn't say we were even in a good place before that, considering all the top options like the ROG Xbox Ally X come in at around $1,000, and the closest rivals we have to the Steam Deck OLED on price, like the Lenovo Legion Go S, cost more than their excellent Ryzen Z1 Extreme predecessors while packing less of a punch. I do remain hopeful we'll see some proper competition in the space eventually, but seeing shaky support for two-year-old models doesn't help the situation.

• More gaming handhelds at Amazon
• Steam Deck accessories at Amazon

Already got Valve's portable? Swing by the best Steam Deck accessories and best Steam Deck docks to enhance your hybrid ensemble. Alternatively, check out the best retro handhelds for ways to play the classics on the go.

It's a question I'm asked every time I tell someone I review gaming laptops for a living; are they worth it? Does that extra degree of portability maintain its value when up against more powerful, upgradeable gaming PC towers? My career so far has been spent finding the best gaming laptops for all kinds of use-cases, so of course I think they're worth it. But that might change in 2026.

Intel's Panther Lake laptops aren't going to wipe Razer, Asus, Lenovo, and MSI's top flagships off the shelves. They might not even trouble the mid-range. But for the everyday player who just wants to be able to play their favorite games at the end of a workday without investing in a second device? Things are starting to look far more interesting this year.

The CES showfloor had business laptops like the Lenovo IdeaPad Pro 5 running Cyberpunk 2077, and doing pretty damn well. With Intel ARC B390 taking over the pictures, many came away impressed with the chip's 1080p handling. The B390 is equipped with full DirectX 12 Ultimate support for hardware-level ray tracing, with 1,536 shader cores and 48 TMUs. That ain't your mother's integrated graphics.

With Panther Lake, AMD's upcoming Gorgon Point, and rumors of Nvidia's N1X swirling, 2026 looks to be the year of the system-on-chip gaming laptop. And that means it doesn't need to be a gaming laptop at all.

After all, these demos are happening on workhorse business machines that traditionally cost far less than the best Alienware laptops or the best Razer laptops. At launch, it's likely these SoC machines are still going to cost a pretty penny - as all new tech tends to. As time goes on, Intel and AMD outfit cheaper machines with their fancy integrated graphics, and the tech underneath grows more efficient, things could change for this entry-level market. 2026 is the first year I've had a serious pause for thought when considering the value of a traditional, dedicated GPU-slogging gaming laptop.

The demand is there. Alienware itself is launching a new ultra-slimline gaming laptop this year, after generations of chunky monsters took over from the super premium X-range. Machines like the Razer Blade 14 and Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 have been slimming their waistlines with every new iteration. Gaming laptops that keep their portability without sacrificing current-gen gaming chops are growing in popularity, and the tech (whether that be the more efficient RTX 50-Series or new SoC systems) is supporting it.

The big guns have nothing to worry about

It's not going to be the MSI Raider A18 HX A9W or the Asus ROG Strix Scar 18 that worries about the introduction of svelte SoC integrated graphics. These RTX 5090-toting powerhouses will laugh in the face of David. Instead, it's the MSI Katana or Lenovo LOQ that should be thinking about its pricing and positioning.

Chunky, budget-friendly gaming laptops that prioritize squeezing the latest RTX 50-class or 60-class into as cheap a chassis as possible are the ones on the back foot. When the Lenovo IdeaPad can perform at the same level with a brighter screen, slimmer chassis, and slicker design, things are going to get interesting.

A while to wait yet

These cheaper rigs aren't going to be wiped out overnight. It's going to be a slow burn - one likely slowed further by shortages in the market. In 2026, an Intel, AMD, or Nvidia SoC laptop is likely going to cost more than a comparable 'traditional' gaming laptop. That's just the way these things work.

But I expect the scales will tip at some point. Whether that's in two years, four years, or six years (or whether some other global shortage extends that wait time), there will come a day when we're using integrated graphics without a second thought. It won't be to run the heaviest games and their top settings, it might not even be to get the most reliable experience, but it will be possible and - dare I say it in this spec and benchmark-filled warzone - enjoyable.

Where does that leave gaming laptops? For the foreseeable future, these dedicated rigs are still going to be worth it. Once entry-level value tips in the favor of integrated options, though, dedicated GPUs might only make sense for the most discerning of PC players among us.

Or it could all fall flat on its face. It's 2026, after all.

• See all gaming laptop deals at Best Buy
• See all gaming laptop deals at Dell

I'm also hunting down all the best Asus gaming laptops, but if you're after a new form factor check out the best gaming PCs and best gaming handhelds on the market.

Dell just made good on its Alienware Area-51 AMD X3D announcement, as you can now grab the Ryzen range. The only issue is that, just like I said during CES 2026, the build does not remotely come in price peace, and while introductory discounts are trimming MSRPs down slightly right now, the RTX 5090 configurations cost up to $7,000.

I'm going to be real with you: the Area-51 might be the best Alienware gaming PC you can buy, but I doubt many of you lovely readers will be looking at even the slightly cheaper Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 builds. Those start at $4,449.99 right now for the aforementioned GPU paired with an AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D, 64GB DDR5 RAM, and a 2TB SSD. Naturally, there is a "more affordable" GeForce RTX 5070 option for $3,749.99, but paying that sort of cash for what is a mid-range graphics card is frankly bananas.

I want to stress that while I find these prices unnerving, they're not entirely unique to Dell's new Alienware range. Plenty of the best gaming PC options out there are getting pretty lofty thanks to the RAMageddon situation sparked by AI demand, and the Nvidia builds specifically pack cards like the RTX 5090 that frankly aren't priced with PC gamers in mind.

That's how we get to where we are with the new AMD X3D range, and the addition of what is one of the best CPUs for gaming right now doesn't help the MSRPs in question. What I will say, though, is that at least you're getting eye-watering specs that could help boost fps beyond the Intel model I tested in my Alienware Area-51 review, and while I still couldn't afford one even if I sold my car, I can see why enthusiasts would want one of these rigs specifically.

At least, that is the case if you're a fiend for high frame rates who also wants something with the Zeta-head logo on the front. If you'd rather just own a rig that looks like it came from space, the Area-51 is perhaps a bit too tame. The whole line-up is designed with upgradability in mind, and while it's great to see a standard ATX motherboard and plenty of accommodations for custom cooling and other tweaks, it looks far more grounded than the egg-shaped Aurora R15 from a few years back.

Ultimately, if you vibe with the understated look of Dell's 2026 rigs, and are willing to invest a hefty amount in monstrous specs, the Area-51 could be worth a look. I'd love to present you with an alternative build for substantially less, but if its an RTX 5090 you're after, rival brands aren't going to save you much moolah.

Realistically, most of you will be looking at an RTX 5080 system, and if you play around with Dell's customization options, you'll be able to dial in some sense of affordability. I use that word lightly, as you're still talking around the $4,000 mark, and when it comes to RTX 5070 options, I'd either look at the Alienware Aurora R16, or just shop around for a build that doesn't carry a flagship cost burden.

• More Alienware PCs at Dell
• More Gaming PCs at Amazon

Looking to play on the go? Swing by the best gaming handheld and best retro handheld options for portable PCs, emulation systems, and more.

Just a week after Nvidia's N1 and N1X Arm processors were leaked to the gaming laptop world, eagle-eyed listing hunters may have found proof that Lenovo is jumping on the chiplet bandwagon. A series of 'supported' models listed on the Lenovo Legion Space support page points to at least one machine geared up with AMD's Strix Halo architecture, alongside previously rumored Nvidia N1X Arm models.

The spot comes from Twitter user Huang514613, who posted a screenshot of the supposed listing on January 23 before it was picked up by others. The 'ASH' portion of that Legion name is telling.

The best gaming laptops get their names in different ways, but Lenovo uses the same format for each release. It's why the previously spotted Legion 7 15N1X11 raised its own eyebrows. Lenovo goes 'model - class - size - processor' and it's the latter that we're concerned about here.

That N1X all but confirmed Nvidia's role in Lenovo's next batch of rigs and now AMD has been sighted in the same outfit.

The Legion 7 15ASH11 follows the same naming conventions; with 'A' representing AMD the same as 'I' counts as Intel elsewhere. That 'SH', though, is being taken to mean Strix Halo - the brand's x86 APU previously seen in the Asus ROG Flow Z13.

Strix Halo (and its rumored upcoming 'Gorgon Halo' refresh) runs differently to the Arm N1X and N1 from Nvidia, using an x86 architecture but still prioritizing its integrated graphics for slimline machines. It's been exclusive to Asus for some time now, running in the best gaming tablet on the market but it looks like Lenovo want to let this chiplet out of its cage.

These slimmer, lighter machines aren't going to be limited to Nvidia's own rumored drop later in the year, then. It looks like the chiplet style is here to stay and could well carve out its own sector of the market by this time next year.

That's better news for those after an all-in-one work and play device. After all, machines running dedicated graphics cards will always beat these SoC options in a footrace. However, as Arm and other integrated systems continue to mature, those putting portability and efficiency first could well have a much wider pool to choose from in the coming year.

• See all gaming laptop deals at Best Buy

I'm also rounding up all the best Asus gaming laptops and the best Alienware laptops on the market. Or, for more slimline options, check out the best Razer laptops I've tested.

AMD really claimed ownership in the desktop CPU market throughout 2025, repeatedly making gains over Intel in Steam hardware surveys each month. At CES 2026, the brand seems to be doubling down on its gaming PC momentum, as it's just been announced that a new variant of one of its most popular processors is set for launch.

The new processor is a souped-up version of the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D. It's called the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D, and although it shares the same architecture and central specs as the original, it ramps up the boost clock from 5.2GHz up to 5.6GHz, which puts it on par with the Ryzen 9 9900X, and actually faster than the Ryzen 9 9900X3D.

Besides that, the 9850X3D holds onto the same 8 cores and 16 threads as its predecessor. It also keeps the same 120W TDP, and doesn't change the 104MB combined L2+L3 cache.

As impressive as this bump up in performance will be for gaming tasks, I have to admit, not an awful lot has changed to really get me excited. For the most part, this might just be enough of a performance bump to warrant a half-step product, but it does seem like a bit of an excuse to charge more for what is nearly the exact same CPU.

What excites me more about the impending arrival of the 9850X3D is the knock-on effect it'll have on the prices of the existing Ryzen 9000 Series portfolio. With a new competitor on the shelves drawing more attention, it's much more likely that the Ryzen 7 9800X3D will now see more frequent price drops, as well as potentially some deeper discounts from its $479 / $449 launch price.

Let's also remember that this adds even more value for money to any and all AM5 motherboards, because it shows that AMD is committed to supporting its platforms with new products for consumers to upgrade to. We now have the AMD Ryzen 7000 family, the initial X3D range, the Ryzen 8000G product stack, the 9000 Series, and now an even wider portfolio of Ryzen 9000 X3D options, which unlock even greater performance.

Meanwhile, Intel's first batch of desktop Core Ultra processors still doesn't seem to be gaining a lot of traction following a weak launch, and with all rumours suggesting that an even newer motherboard socket is also in the works, you can see why AMD is enjoying time in the CPU limelight.

The Ryzen 7 9850X3D will apparently be available in Q1 of 2026, but AMD has yet to share a specific launch date or price for the new CPU.

For more on PCs, check out the best graphics card, the best computer speakers, and the best RAM for gaming.

I can't lie, I'm starting to worry about Valve's Steam Machine due to increase RAM costs and general tariff tom foolery, but savvy PC players are already out in The Badlands making DIY solutions. In fact, it turns out that you can turn AMD's crypto mining board that wields a cut down PS5 chip into a surprisingly capable system that's way cheaper than anything else out there.

Highlighted by TikTok creator TechMakesArt, the AMD BC-250 was originally designed to mine bitcoin within a server rack. However, since it is indeed using a version of the PS5's APU, which in turn is like a souped-up gaming handheld chip , it can actually serve as an all-in-one PC. Amusingly, it's about the same size as a top-end graphics card like the RTX 4090, but has 16GB shared RAM on board, an M.2 SSD slot, and is powered by single 8-pin connector.

Yes, the BC-250 is more like a slimmed down PS5 than a conventional PC, but that's what might make it an ideal Steam Machine alternative. You are going to have to fully engage in scrappy modding to turn AMD's board into a functioning gaming system, especially since the cooling heatsink is designed exist within a rack. That said, all you really need is access to a 3D printer to make a fan bracket, whip up a case, and you've got something you can actually game on.

Naturally, there are two things you'll want to do before spraying your mouth with chrome and diving into this project. The first is check whether you can get one for the right price, as you should only be paying around $150 max for one of these boards. That said, I am seeing prices jump up as awareness increases, and while there are some listings floating around at eBay, I'm seeing fewer options online than before.

You'll secondly want to consider whether an ex-crypto mining system is the right rig for you. TechMakesArt does provide some performance insights using Arc Raiders, Hollow Knight, and Megabonk, and the results honestly feel like a would-be PS5 slim. By that, I mean it performs admirably at 1440p, managing to maintain 60fps for the most part with a little FSR upscaling help, but the creator notes that CPU utilisation was only actually at around 60-70%, so not quite pushing limits.

Keep in mind the AMD APU within the BC-250 is an RDNA 2 chipset, so it is missing out on newer Radeon bells and whistles like Fluid Motion Frames and Frame Generation. These are two tools Valve's Steam Machine will absolutely be leveraging to hit 4K 60fps in new releases, so you could view this makeshift option as the predecessor that never was to the storefront giant's upcoming box.

Again, you will have to put some work in to get the AMD BC-250 working as an ideal Steam Machine, but it does feel ridiculously promising. At their cheapest, you'll be able to snag one of these boards for around $100, and I'll be trying to do just that over the Holidays. If I am successful, I will document my experience flashing custom firmware, sorting out the cooling, and making a living room appropriate case, as I love the idea of redeeming hardware that was once put to a questionable use.

Even if I can't get hold of an AMD BC-250, I am fully ready to embrace scrapheap challenges in 2026 to combat the increased costs of PC gaming. That means trying to turn every mini rig I can find into a DIY Steam Machine and seeing whether you can get away with shoving shiny new GPUs into old systems with DDR3 RAM, as since even console prices are no longer set in stone, players will need to get creative to keep playing.

• More mini PCs at Amazon
• Gaming handhelds at Best Buy

Looking for ways to play the classics? Swing by the best retro console options and best retro handhelds for emulation devices and more.

Hear ye, hear ye! Prime Day GPU deals are actually a thing this year, and it's restoring my faith in graphics card offers. The catch? Well, it's actually Newegg providing the Nvidia price cuts rather than Amazon, whereas Big Deal Days is catering to AMD builds.

The trick with Prime Day GPUs is finding models for under MSRP, and that's way harder than you'd expect. That's largely because custom versions of graphics cards like the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 and AMD Radeon RX 9070 tend to drift from their chip maker's recommended pricing, but Newegg and Amazon are offering restorative discounts.

Both of these cards are down to what I'd call a fair price this Prime Day, but the RTX 5070 is the better deal on paper. That said, there are reasons to go for Nvidia or AMD when it comes to features and AI upscaling, as both companies use a slightly different approach.

For example, if you're purely looking to boost fps and aren't fussed over whether you're gaining "real frames", the RTX 5070 is the way to go. DLSS 4 uses Multi-Frame Generation that can increase average frame rates by 4x, resulting in a massive perceivable performance uplift.

The tool really comes in handy when trying to max out settings while still satiating the best gaming monitors with ridiculous refresh rates, and it's the reason why Nvidia felt like it could claim the RTX 5070 boasts GeForce RTX 4090 performance. Just so you're aware, that's not remotely true when it comes to native performance, but Multi-Frame Generation will help speed things up massively while curbing latency using Nvidia Reflex.

On the AMD side of things, the RX 9070 leans less into AI upscaling with FidelityFX Super Resolution 4 (FSR 4). You're still getting neat Frame Generation tricks, but the card will stick to doubling your fps count. For most of you, this will still be more than enough to get you well over the 60fps sweet spot in most games, but you'll be limited if you have a monstrously high refresh rate monitor.

Where the RX 9070 manages to trump the RTX 5070 is with AI upscaling versatility. Thanks to AMD's driver-level Fluid Motion Frames feature, you can actually turn on Frame Generation in almost every game. This means you don't have to wait for developers to bake in support, in turn giving you the option for boosting performance in older games. Stability and latency will vary based on the game, but it does technically mean you can boost fps in more games with the RDNA 4 card versus Blackwell.

It's worth pointing out, too, that in games like Cyberpunk 2077 and Hitman 3, the RX 9070 actually edges slightly ahead of the RTX 9070 with AI upscaling off. Most of you are going to at least enable Super Resolution where available, but it is impressive to see AMD actually outpace Nvidia here. It still doesn't quite beat the GeForce card when it comes to ray tracing, which has been a common theme throughout the last few generations, but the mid-range RDNA 4 card is still pretty impressive.

Picking either the RX 9070 or RTX 5070 comes down to your desired level of AI assistance. If you just want silly frame rates in most new games, Nvidia's mid-ranger is a safe bet. If you've got a big backlog and don't want to tweak settings to achieve a respectable fps count, the new Radeon card will be more useful.

What I will say is that an Nvidia refresh is very likely on the cards, and we could soon see RTX 5070 Super options arrive to challenge AMD. I suspect such a GeForce GPU would be looking to take on the beefier RX 9070 XT since it has a lead over the green team's current offering, so you may want to either hold off or go for a higher spec card if you're at risk of performance FOMO.

• More graphics cards at Amazon
• Full gaming PCs at Amazon

Looking for more Big Deal Days offers? Swing by Prime Day gaming PC deals for reduced rigs, Prime Day monitor deals for display discounts, and Prime Day Nintendo Switch deals for console options.

The graphics card scene is obsessed with flagships, so I’m delighted that the AMD Radeon RX 9070 has entered the battlefield before an RTX 5090 rival. Not only does it suggest that Team Red is prioritizing mainstream gaming PC builds, but it also puts pressure on Nvidia to put more love into its mid-range releases.

And, for what it’s worth, mid-range competition is fierce within the best graphics card ring. You’ve got the AMD Radeon RX 9070 swinging big punches with its $549 / £529.99 MSRP, the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 matching those blows with the same price tag, and beefier Radeon RX 9070 XT models for just $50 more, making jabs at the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti.

The vanilla Radeon RX 9070 does have a bit of an issue on its hands, though, and it ties back to both its XT counterpart and RTX 5070 rival. While its price point is pretty much where it needs to be, it does risk being overshadowed in terms of performance per dollar and AI upscaling abilities. The latter isn’t remotely clear-cut, and the idea of “artificially” boosting fps via Frame Generation is nuanced, but it still may lead players to pick up another GPU.

Specs

Armed with an Navi 48 XT GPU, the RX 9070 effectively kick-started AMD's RDNA 3 line-up. The card is positioned as the company's "affordable" mid-range GPU, but its only current siblings are the slightly beefier RX 9070 XT and entry-level RX 9060 models.

Effectively, there is no AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX successor on the market right now, and the RX 9070 isn't quite on par with the Radeon RX 7900 XT. The new contender wields 16GB GDDR6 VRAM, which is 4GB less than the last-gen flagship, and it's rocking 3,584 shading units versus 5,376. Its RT core count is lower too (84 vs 56), so I'd be hesitant to recommend this card as a newer alternative.

That shouldn't really come as a surprise, given its real predecessor is technically the Radeon RX 7700 XT, and its specs are pretty similar on paper:

That said, it is packing enough heat to take on the RTX 5070 and brings the fight to Nvidia's mid-ranger. The fact that it's got more VRAM helps it appear better value from the get-go, even though it is using slower GDDR6 memory rather than GDDR7.

Of course, we are also talking about a new generation of GPUs, and Navi 4 chips can tap into improved AI upscaling features like AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 4. I'd say that's the main draw with the RX 9070 compared to AMD's last-gen lineup, and it will help fill in a few performance gaps.

Design

I’m perhaps more into graphics card designs than I should be, so I was keen to see what the RX 9070 brings to the form-factor table. Sadly, there’s no in-house AMD version of the GPU, so your mileage is going to vary depending on your choice of AIB brand. I’m specifically testing the Asus Prime version of the graphics card that looks nearly identical to the company’s RTX 5070.

It’s not uncommon for brands to use the same shroud designs for both Nvidia and AMD cards. That said, it does mean that, regardless of the GPU inside, you’re getting the same tri-fan cooling setup, curvy body, and subtle black matte finish with “PRIME” engraved on top. At a glance, the only notable variance is the white printed Radeon text that sits in place of the GeForce logo on the Nvidia model, but you can still play a game of spot the difference.

Notably, the RX 9070 uses two 8-pin power connectors rather than a 12VHPWR dongle used by Nvidia. Sticking with the old socket is something AMD doubled down on last generation, and it seems like the company is maintaining a “not broke, don’t fix it” approach for now. The choice is certainly going to simplify cable management and result in less disruption to your existing case wiring, although the layout is just as visually ugly as the green team’s approach.

Ideally, I would have loved to see an RX 9070 reference design that takes on the slick approach to the RTX 5070 Founder’s Edition. Most AIB models are much chonkier than Nvidia’s FE model, and while that’s not going to matter to those of you with the case space, it’d still help the AMD card squeeze into smaller spaces. Plus, it’s just nice to see options across the board get smaller after the absurd sizes featured last generation (looking at you, RTX 4090).

Features

AMD Adrenaline is the beating heart of the RX 9070’s feature set, providing the GPU with various software tricks that benefit performance, power management, and various other perks. The suite is your key to tapping into the GPU’s new FSR 4 and Frame Generation abilities, including the ability to enable the latter on a driver level.

Rather than simply mimicking Nvidia’s DLSS 4 and Multi-Frame Generation, FSR 4 puts on its own show. The idea is similar, but the implementation differs both functionally and philosophically. By that, I mean that AMD is focusing on providing standard MFG rather than shooting for the stars with 4x boosts, something the company says will help provide a better balance between performance and fidelity.

At the same time, Adrenaline also lets players enable “Fluid Motion Frames” in games without FSR 4 baked in. Using the driver-level option effectively gives you a lifeline if frame rates are struggling to reach a sweet spot, but latency will vary depending on what you’re trying to run. As a rule of thumb, I keep it off when responsiveness is pivotal, whereas it comes in clutch for demanding RTS games and casual adventures.

Fluid Motion Frames is just one of many options tied in with Adrenaline’s “Game Experience” presets, which include HYPR-RX and Eco modes. These profiles effectively let you switch on features like Radeon Super Resolution, Anti-Lag, and Radeon Chill for specific games, allowing you to sway between full throttle performance and better efficiency. The layout isn’t worlds apart from what’s offered in the Nvidia app, but it does provide up-front data on average frame rates and performance grades based on your recent sessions.

If you’d rather not have an external app messing with your settings, you can tell Adrenaline to stick with default options. I have noticed that both AMD and Nvidia’s software likes to jump the gun on occasion and apply what it thinks are the ideal presets, and there are instances where you’ll want to quash those suggestions. The idea behind the automation is that you’ll be provided with optimal performance without having to mess with dials, sort of like a console, but as a PC player, I don’t always vibe with having less involvement.

Performance

I know for a fact that many of you will scroll straight to the frame rates whenever you see a graphics card review. I mean, that’s exactly why I’ve been sitting benchmarking the RX 9070 across various games and comparing the results to the RTX 5070 and various other cards, and while sometimes that means looking at pretty similar figures, this Radeon GPU has caught me pleasantly off guard.

Just like most new graphics cards, there are two sides to the performance coin. The "heads" side in this instance represents native rasterized frame rates, while "tails" is the results after Frame Generation and AI upscaling are applied. Both are important in different ways, but I know many of you will consider the former to be a true merit measurement.

Off the bat, the RX 9070 hits higher average frame rates than the RTX 5070 at 4K with ray tracing off. This first became clear when prowling the streets of Night City, as Cyberpunk 2077 runs at around 55fps versus 48fps. That edge will give players something to work with when trying to boost fps on a mid-range PC without any AI assistance, and even temporal upscaling will easily inch things to a 60fps sweet spot.

The trend continues throughout the likes of Hitman 3, which hits way higher than I was expecting at 130fps versus 114fps, and Dragon Age: The Veilguard manages to venture over 60fps, unlike the RTX 5070. But once you apply ray tracing, Nvidia’s contender starts to regain ground by hitting higher averages.

The gap isn’t always massive, and the 5070 manages the same 21fps average in Cyberpunk as the RX 9070. Still, it’s clear that when it comes to ray tracing, Nvidia still has an edge, in turn giving its card a higher figure to multiply using Multi-Frame Generation. In fact, if you crank the AI upscaling tool to its max capabilities (x4), you end up with absurdly higher frame rates.

For instance, the RTX 5070 can churn out a monstrous 215fps average in Cyberpunk 2077, whereas the RX 9070 taps out at 92fps with x2 Frame Generation enabled. Naturally, this is because AMD’s card is duplicating rasterized frames, while the GeForce card is generating three frames. To pull that off without any latency issues or lag, additional tools like Nvidia Reflex are working away in the background, but Team Red seems to believe trying to fill in the gaps to that extent is detrimental to the overall experience.

I’m certainly not here to fuel the “fake frames” debate going on within the GPU scene right now, but some PC enthusiasts value rasterized “native” results over anything assisted by AI. I have my own personal reasons for not being a fan of anything related to artificial intelligence, but when you get down to brass tacks, every current-gen graphics card is leveraging upscaling tech to improve performance.

AMD does take a slightly different approach, though, and in some ways, the RX 9070 does more to assist performance across the board. That’s largely because you can enable Fluid Motion Frames at a driver level in most games, which will provide them with higher frame rates. This is something that was introduced with Radeon RX 7000 GPUs, and it can make a big difference in the right situation.

Let’s use Total War: Warhammer 3 as an example, an RTS game that I routinely use for benchmarking. Base performance clocks in at around 68fps, which sits nicely about the RTX 5070’s 58fps result. The game lacks any sort of AI upscaling options, so DLSS can’t help the GeForce card out this time around, but switching Fluid Motion Frames on drives average frame rates up to a nifty 140fps.

Sega’s RTS romp is a pretty good example of a game that benefits from drive-level Frame Generation with minimal caveats. Again, you can switch this option on across your Steam library, but it is worth considering the latency implications before you get carried away. Yes, you’ll have a Radeon equivalent to Nvidia Reflex to hand, AMD Anti-Lag, but if I’m being honest, your mileage will vary depending on how low a frame rate you’re trying to boost, as well as other underlying factors, and I’d just avoid it when playing anything competitive.

Moving on to temps, the Asus Prime performs pretty similarly to the RTX 5070 version. The GPU rarely reached above 70°C, and even then, it only managed to touch 72°C once. More often than not, I find that both reference and custom coolers more than have thermals under control, which means you’ll have one less thing to worry about when building or upgrading your rig. That said, I’m using a fairly large test case, so you could end up with toastier results depending on your build.

Should you buy the AMD Radeon RX 9070?

If you can grab one for under $450, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 will furnish your rig with great 4K frame rates, 16GB VRAM, and decent AI upscaling tricks. Ultimately, it still falls short compared to the RTX 5070 when it comes to ray tracing and top-line Multi Frame Generation enhanced performance, but the GPU does outpace the GeForce card on the native track.

The RX 9070 is also a strong option for players looking to give more games an AI upscaling boost, too. Having the option to enable Fluid Motion Frames at a driver level can make a difference in games less reliant on low latency, and it will help those of you with high-performance backlog ambitions.

There’s a lot to like about the RX 9070, whether you’re into the idea of AI-enhanced PC graphics or not. While the gap between Multi Frame Generation and AMD’s equivalent is significant, it’s perhaps not a deal breaker if you aren’t trying to satiate a high refresh rate gaming monitor, and the extra flexibility of Fluid Motion Frames could end up being a winning tradeoff.

How I tested the AMD Radeon RX 9070

For two weeks, I used the AMD Radeon RX 9070 within my main gaming PC. During that time, I benchmarked the GPU using a set list of test games at 4K and 1440p with ray tracing on and off, including Cyberpunk 2077, Hitman 3, Total War: Warhammer 3, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider.

Throughout testing, I collected average frame rate data for each benchmark game and monitored peak temperatures. In compatible games, I also enabled AI upscaling tools like AMD FSR and Fluid Motion Frames to compare the results to native abilities, specifically focusing on average fps changes, visual quality, and latency.

For more information on how we test graphics cards and other PC components, check out our full GamesRadar+ Hardware Policy.

Building a PC from scratch? Swing by the best CPU for gaming for a punchy processor and the best gaming RAM for solid memory options. You'll want to peek at the best SSDs if you also need beefy storage.

40% of something might not seem like much. For AMD in the CPU market, however, that's a bigger percentage than it seems. In the latest Steam Hardware Survey results, the brand has surpassed the 40% usage mark in the processor vendor category for the very first time, which would suggest that more gamers on Steam than ever before are using AMD CPUs in their gaming PCs.

If anything, this goes to show just how dominant brands can be in the PC market. Nvidia, for example, still owns 73.94% of the GPU market (according to this month's results). Even with this landmark result for AMD in the CPU market, Intel is still enjoying a 59% lead. Even if that figure is down -0.75% from last month, it's shrunk down from 62.30% in March, which shows that Intel is being chosen by fewer and fewer gamers in 2025.

It's worth noting that these figures don't point to a definite proportion of all Steam players since the monthly Hardware survey only pulls from a random sample of players. We also don't know a lot of the metrics of the survey, but it is useful in showing overall trends in what hardware PC gamers are using. Regardless, it's impossible to deny that AMD's share of the market is growing in 2025 when you look at the month-on-month results, so what's caused this shift of momentum?

Pricing, futureproofing, and a PR nightmare

AMD has always priced its CPUs at a lower level than Intel, and that's partly because Intel has such a dominant position in the market. AMD tries to undercut the Blue Team by offering great value for money, and it's always been one of the brand's best tactics.

Lately, however, Intel's position atop the desktop processor hill has seemed rather shaky. For starters, it's had to deal with a PR nightmare because of its 13th and 14th generation products. These were extremely demanding processors and absolute hot heads at the best of times (our Intel Core i7-13700K review will show you that much), but when more and more users were reporting that elevated voltages were causing damage, things weren't looking good.

Intel is still dealing with the fallout from that because, despite an extended warranty and multiple BIOS patches to fix the issues, people are still reporting Raptor Lake volatility issues. Then, to make matters worse, Intel launched its long-awaited Arrow Lake processors for desktop users, which not only performed worse than the volatile 13th and 14th generations in gaming tasks, but also required people to uproot their entire PCs and adopt a new motherboard.

When Intel does this, it typically means that support for its older motherboard socket, in this case, the LGA 1700, is dead - in all likelihood, the brand won't release more products for people with that motherboard.

Meanwhile, AMD has been supporting its AM4 platform from 2016 for almost a decade now, and it's committed to supporting its current motherboard socket with new products (used for its DDR5-compatible Ryzen 7000, 8000G, and 9000 families) until at least 2027.

If I were building a new gaming PC today, I know which brand of processor I'd pick. As if that wasn't enough of a thorn in Intel's paw, that isn't even mentioning the ace up AMD's sleeve.

The X3D Chip - the key to victory?

As the reputation of Intel CPUs has been failing, AMD's X3D chips have been lapping up all the glory. From my AMD Ryzen 7 8700X3D review, I can see why. These processors have been designed especially for gaming and content creation tasks with a unique architecture that allows them to cram in more power without changing the form factor.

Essentially, each modern processor has an L3 cache, which is like a quick access library that allows it to store frequently processed data (game levels, information, calculations, and the like). The 3D V-Cache that AMD has put in these products allows for quicker access and smoother performance as a result, which delivers some excellent gaming results.

To top it all off, AMD now has X3D processors in its 7000 and 9000 lineup, giving players so many options to choose from when building new gaming PCs.

For these reasons, it's easy to see why AMD's proportion of the CPU market is growing. Personally, I don't see that changing anytime soon, when the latest rumours suggest that Intel's next desktop CPU range will require yet another new motherboard socket from the one that its Arrow Lake products use.

Like I said at the start, 40% might not seem like an awful lot to write home about, and the Steam Hardware Survey isn't exactly wrote truth, but when AMD's slice of the CPU pie among Steam gamers continues to eat into Intel's, that's a bigger deal than you'd think.

For years, Intel has ruled the roost, but AMD's commitment to its customers in the long run is starting to pay off. It isn't just a matter of lower prices and more efficient performance. AMD now has chips that outperform Intel's in gaming tasks while costing less, thanks to the X3D options on the shelves. When Intel is seemingly refusing to meet AMD's long-term support promises with new products for existing motherboard platforms, it's no surprise that gamers are choosing the other side.

I, for one, don't think 40% is a stopping point by any means.

Looking to build your own PC? Check out the best RAM for gaming, the best graphics cards, and the best computer speakers.

Gaming PC prices are weird. Although the RTX 5070 graphics card has a higher MSRP than the Radeon RX 9070 ($549 / $499, respectively), prebuilt gaming PCs housing those GPUs aren't reflecting that right now. Call it higher demand for AMD's option, call it manufacturers playing games with prices, call it whatever you want, but if you want a gaming PC that utilizes either card right now, your cheaper bet is Nvidia.

Case in point, this HP Omen 35L at Best Buy costs $1,499.99 at the moment, down from a full price of $1,849.99. I'll grant you that I've been seeing RTX 5070 builds at the $1,499 level since launch, but it's still tricky to find a prebuilt gaming rig with this GPU at anything under $1,600. On the opposite side of the GPU war, I can't find any RX 9070 build that's cheaper. The closest I've found is this Skytech Shadow, which comes in at $1,567.99 at Walmart.

AMD's Radeon RX 9070 has been the blue-eyed boy of the GPU market in 2025 after Nvidia's performance claims about the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 landed flat on their face. It was always going to be the case that this GPU competing with the RTX 4090 would mean some heavy DLSS work, but the limited performance boosts the 5070 offers over the RTX 4070 Super and the lesser RTX 4070 have left a lot of people wanting more for their money.

AMD's 9070 options still require upscaling work at 4K, but they've targeted a more native performance approach, which has won a lot of PC builders over. With lower price tags than the RTX 5070 and 5070 Ti, it's been a refreshing momentum shift in the best graphics card market.

Arguably, both GPUs will give you excellent gaming performance for the cost in 2025, and whether or not you like AI upscaling wizardry from team green or red, both options will require it for the 4K, high frame rate gaming you're probably after.

Both of the PCs I've suggested above sport some great specs elsewhere, but since we've had hands-on experience with the HP Omen 35L, I'm more inclined to recommend it to you.

On specs alone, the two rigs are admittedly very similar. Both harness a 1TB SSD, but the Skytech Shadow actually has less RAM and a slightly weaker processor. For costing more money, I know which one I'd rather have. The HP Omen 35L also has a white chassis, which gives it a more distinct look. I did wish it had an AIO cooler inside it, but this is always something you could upgrade later if you felt it was too loud.

Want to build your own gaming PC?

• CPUs: Discounts from AMD
• GPUs: RTX 50 series GPUs starting at $339
• RAM: 32GB of DDR5 for $89.99

Don't forget to also look out for the best CPU for gaming, the best RAM for gaming, and the best computer speakers.

A pretty sizable PS6 leak just dropped, and it suggests the next-generation console will be cheaper and faster than the PS5 Pro. The lower MSRP and performance uplift is thanks to a new AMD RDNA 5 GPU that's somewhat comparable to an RTX 4080 graphics card, and it could be with us by 2028.

The latest PS6 leak comes courtesy of tech YouTuber Moore's Law is Dead, and the core information apparently comes from a 2023 AMD presentation. MLID does stress that Sony's plans could have changed since then, but says the console maker's plans for the next generation will likely remain.

If you're not used to deep diving into graphics card specs and technical info, the details of this PS6 leak will feel pretty dense. However, the parts you should take away are that the PS6 should outperform the PS5 Pro, might cost the same as the base console, and consume less power.

The leak itself revolves around the PS6's rumored choice of AMD chipset. That happens to be a Navi 5 chiplet APU that features 40-48 RDNA 5 Compute Units running at 3GHz and potentially 8 Zen 6 cores. It'll also require only 160W Total Base Power (TBP), making it more efficient than the PS5 Pro's Zen 2 chip.

MLID's breakdown suggests that PS6 performance should be three times higher than the original PS5, but ray tracing performance is "expected to be higher." On paper, the next-gen console allegedly features the same core count as the base PS5 system, but benefits from using a far newer generation of AMD chipset.

When you break it down, the PS6 may actually feature fewer Compute Units than the PS5 Pro, but again, RDNA 5 means each core packs more of a punch. Keep in mind, this is before we get to how AI upscaling techniques like PSSR will come into play, as that may help frame rates appear even higher.

Ultimately, MLID sums up the PS6 AMD chip leak by saying, "This will be faster than the PS5 Pro." He also speculates that the new console will look "wildly better than the PS5" with ray tracing switched on. The part that admittedly excites me more, though, is that Sony is apparently focused on keeping costs low in the generation ahead.

What that will likely result in is a PS6 that comes in at around the same price as the PS5 that can solidly hit 4K 120fps without compromise. The Pro model can't quite pull off top-end UHD performance consistently, and if paired with better ray tracing abilities, it could leave a nice visual impression comparatively.

As for when the PS6 will actually land, MLID claims to have a "clear document" outlining that manufacturing will commence in 2027, and all signs point towards everything being on track. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to suggest the PlayStation 6 could hit shelves in 2028.

All of this will likely give PlayStation fans out there butterflies, but I'd urge you to take this leak with the usual grain of salt. Keep in mind that the AMD presentation in question is seemingly from 2023, and Sony could have made key decisions about its PS6 plans since then. That said, I am looking forward to a new-gen console that provides fancy 4K visuals without costing $700.

PSA - leaks also suggest Sony's PlayStation "Cannis" handheld should "beat the ROG Xbox Ally X" if you're more into portable consoles.

Looking for more things PlayStation? Swing by the best PS5 accessories for great add-ons. You'll want to peek at the best gaming handhelds too if you'd rather play on the go.

The GPD WIN 5 will soon crash the best gaming handhelds party with a new AMD Strix Halo APU. The new powerhouse portable may even end up giving the flagship Asus ROG Xbox Ally a run for its money, but the catch is that it lacks a built-in battery. The solution? Well, GPD plans to strap one to the device's back instead, and I'm not completely horrified by that approach.

Revealed by tech YouTuber Cary Golomb (The Phawx), the GPD WIN 5 weighs in at 556.5 grams without a battery attached. That's only slightly heavier than the Nintendo Switch 2 with its Joy-Con attached, but clipping the required 80Wh pack to the portable will chonk things up to around 900g.

Yes, that's heavier than the likes of the Asus ROG Ally X and MSI Claw 8 AI+, and GPD is arguably pushing the definition of portable here. Keep in mind that the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 chip within the WIN 5 is in a completely different league to even the upcoming Ryzen Z2 Extreme, and that means the Strix Halo handheld will need all the internal room it can get for cooling.

I fully expected the idea of a handheld without an internal battery to give me the ick. Yet, after some reflection, it could actually be the ideal solution for a premium portable that's going to weigh a ton anyway. We're only just getting to the stage where squeezing a hybrid Zen 5 chip into a shell with an appropriately small battery is viable, so there's a fat chance of pulling off the same with a 6-core, 32-thread monster that will guzzle even more power.

Reality is that if you're really into the idea of spending more on a WIN 5 to hit frame rates that are largely outside the purview of handheld gaming PCs right now, using an external battery isn't that big a deal. I mean, chances are that the 80Wh battery would end up being devoured by the Strix Halo chip's 45-75W power requirements anyway, meaning you'd have to reach for a charger.

Plus, if you really don't want to give your mitts a workout with a 900g portable, you could just sit with the handheld plugged in. The only time I tend to use even my Steam Deck OLED's battery is when I'm miles away from an outlet, and even then, I normally keep a 100W power bank in my backpack for emergencies. The WIN 5's pack seemingly uses a special connector, which is a shame since it would have been great if it could be used with a cable to keep things light, but adding USB-C would potentially just add to the bulk.

While I am at peace with the WIN 5's Ghostbuster's style Proton Pack, especially if it means raising the frame rate ceiling higher than ever, rivals are already looking to outdo GPD. Ayaneo just announced its own Strix Halo device that will feature its own built-in battery, but the company hasn't quite finished making a "Next 2" prototype just yet. We did get a peek at the Ayaneo Pocket DS, though, and the "world's first flip dual-screen Android handheld" could become my new favorite portable for playing DS games specifically.

The handheld scene can feel pretty chaotic at times, especially when companies like GPD decide to break norms to push the performance bar. Regular players will no doubt simply kick back and watch things unfold, while enthusiasts will be ready to lay down serious cash regardless of any caveats. It's great to see brands trying to move portable PC standards forward, regardless, and most handheld fans are probably going to be up in arms about ROG Xbox Ally price leaks rather than quirky premium handheld PC design decisions.

• More gaming handhelds at Best Buy
• Nintendo Switch 2 | $449.99 at Best Buy
• Lenovo Legion Go | $749.99 $549.99 at Best Buy

Happily using Valve's handheld? Swing by the best Steam Deck accessories and best Steam Deck dock for useful add-ons, peripherals, and gadgets.

I'm going to hold your PC gaming hand when I say this - you're not going to get an RTX 5090 graphics card cheap this Prime Day. In truth, I doubt the flagship Blackwell GPU will ever reach an affordable price point, even with discounts, as that failed to happen with the RTX 4090 and its RTX 30-series sibling before it.

That said, there is a custom Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 graphics card down to $2,799.99 from $2,999.99 right now. No, that's not a typo, the offer knocks $300 off the best graphics card contender, and it's still $800 more than its fabled MSRP. Even Amazon isn't willing to call this a Prime Day gaming deal, and I've noticed that it even takes away the "Prime Day Deal" filter on the side on the side of the page when you're browsing GPU offers.

Even just thinking about flagship graphics card prices is giving me a headache, but I'm not willing to let migraine-inducing custom MSRPs get the better of me. Instead, I've fished out three graphics card offers that will actually help you grab a GPU for a little less than usual, ultimately helping you upgrade your rig or build a new PC using offers this Prime Day.

Spoiler - they're all part of the Newegg FantasTech sale rather than Prime Day.

From the bottom of my GPU reviewing heart, I wish I had better graphics cards to share with you. I do think the above offers will help PC builders out there make the best of a bad situation, especially upon discovering Prime Day is allergic to discounting cards.

I feel like the best advice I can give to those of you building a rig from scratch is to actually check out Prime Day PC deals first. Pre-built systems can be your key to getting a graphics card for "cheaper" since some machines will drop further than a single GPU. You'll still have to invest heavily if you're seeking an RTX 5090 build, so keep that in mind if you're shooting for the specs stars.

• View more graphics cards at Amazon
• Acer Nitro Intel Arc B570 | $299.99 $249 at Amazon
• Asus GeForce RTX 5060 Ti | $699.99 $659.99 at Amazon

Looking for more Amazon price cuts? Swing by Prime Day Steam Deck deals and Prime Day Asus ROG Ally deals for handheld savings. You'll want to check out Prime Day monitor deals too if you seek display discounts.

While Xbox increasingly pursues a multiplatform strategy, it's not giving up on hardware yet. Microsoft has just announced a "multi-year agreement" with AMD for new hardware across a variety of device types, including next-generation consoles.

"The collaboration aims to uplevel the player experience by delivering advanced graphics with enhanced visual quality, more immersive gameplay using the power of AI, and compatibility with players’ existing Xbox games library," the company says in a press release. "Together, Xbox and AMD hope to enable play across devices in entirely new ways, delivering an Xbox experience designed for players – without being confined to a single store or tied to one device."

While this covers a wide variety of device types, including PC, handheld, and cloud hardware, Xbox president Sarah Bond specifically calls out "next-generation Xbox consoles" in a video message to fans.

"This is all about building you a gaming platform that's always with you, so you can play the games you want across devices anywhere you want, delivering you an Xbox experience not locked to a single store or tied to one device," Bond concludes. "That's why we're working closely with the Windows team, to ensure that Windows is the number one platform for gaming. The next generation of Xbox is coming to life, and this is just the beginning."

Of course, we still don't know exactly what a next-gen console from Xbox might look like here in the modern era, especially given that "this is an Xbox" marketing line the company has now been promoting for some time.

That promise of Windows being "the number one platform for gaming" is particularly curious. Are we looking at a future where new Xbox consoles are essentially Windows-powered PCs built for the living room? That's not far off from the model adopted by Valve for the Steam Deck, and we've already seen Microsoft invest in something similar with the Asus ROG Xbox Ally.

Somehow, it's nearly been five years since the launch of Xbox Series X (and PS5, for that matter). In many ways, it feels like this generation has barely gotten started, but historically speaking a half-decade is a pretty long time for a console generation to keep running. Whatever shape the next Xbox ends up taking, here's hoping it'll prove worthy of a generational upgrade.

Here are the upcoming Xbox Series X games you need to know about.

If anything can be said of 2024, it's that, on the whole, the CPU launches that we got were massively disappointing, both from AMD and Intel. The Ryzen 9 9900X I have on test here is one fine example of that very premise.

I think we were all itching for something more when the 9000 series finally arrived with us in August of last year. Intel was on the back foot, scrambling to resolve its Raptor Lake stability issues, and AMD had time and time again proven to us that its Zen architecture was second to none. Certainly over the last seven years, its dramatic IPC advancements and serious improvements in gaming performance and efficiency have had Intel on the ropes every single time. It was like the blue team was constantly scrambling to keep up and, in its haste, had let in one too many bugs in the process.

In fact, it's that architectural dominance, the introduction of chiplets, and scalable designs that are the reason so many Zen chips grace those best CPU for gaming lists out there, because, time and time again, they've consistently delivered, with massive improvements on the lineup year on year. That is, until these wee beauties here.

Behind the scenes

The 9000 series, compared to its 7000 kindred, is unabashedly rather underwhelming. Sure, there are some AI advancements and latency improvements, and yes, AMD has significantly rebuilt the branch predictors and bumped up the heftiness of those information ports and reorder buffers. And yes, that has led to improvements in more complex, deeper workloads, but for the vast majority of us, that's just technical jargon and hardware that doesn't particularly bolster the applications that we most commonly use.

For standard gaming, for rendering, and for streaming, the effect these tweaks and twists, and turns have had is, well, minor to say the least. More suited for high-end data crunching and server work rather than the humble gamer. And you can understand why, as these 9000 series chips are entirely based on that new Zen 5 architecture, and to be blunt, it's an architectural design whose scope encompasses far more than just your standard run-of-the-mill home-grown gaming PC. AMD is aggressively targeting the server market right now, as that's where the big money is, and so designing its latest chips to leverage that is a matter of urgency.

And then, of course, once the dust had settled and AMD's full product stack finally hit the shelves, Intel launched the carnage that was the Core Ultra 200 series, and all hell ensued. AMD was a dull upgrade on the 7th generation chips, sure, but at least it wasn't a downgrade compared to the previous platform, something only Intel had managed to achieve at that point.

Still, times have changed, and well over half a year later, Intel's Core Ultra 200 series is finally starting to come together. Combined with some seriously aggressive price drops and the more fervent arrival of AMD's newest X3D lineup, it got me thinking. Are these X series chips still worth the while? Can this 12-core chip still run with the pack, or is it just too darn expensive for its own good?

Specs & Features

If I'm honest, compared to the Ryzen 9 7900X, the 9900X is, well, quite dull. If you were playing Top Trumps with these things, you'd be hard-pressed to spot the difference. Both feature the same 12 cores, the same 24 threads, both come with 64 MB of L3 cache, and both tout a 5.6 GHz clock speed. From a pure hardcore performance perspective, the numerical advantages are basically nonexistent.

Effectively, the way AMD's Ryzen processors work is that they are modular by design. Each CPU has a number of "core complexes" on it that house the cores in question, and AMD can add or subtract them from each chip design, increasing or decreasing the total number of cores on the unit. The problem is that these complexes need to talk to each other and transfer information between themselves. This is done thanks to what AMD calls its "Infinity Fabric".

Unlike Intel's approach to year-on-year multiplication, though, there are no additional cores or threads here, and AMD seems content maxing out those chiplet designs at 6-8 cores per core complex die. At least for the time being.

That's not to say everything is the same, mind you; AMD has reworked those finer details to improve latency between the cache memory and the core complexes themselves, and that in turn has led to significant improvements in computational and rendering workloads (just don't expect that to carry over quite so readily to gaming).

Also, thanks to AMD shifting some of its manufacturing processes and adding a number of efficiency improvements with its new Zen 5 architecture, total power draw has been cut down by 50W on the last gen, which is a serious win for both temperature management and your electricity bill.

As for pure I/O and compatibility, fortunately, the 9900X is still based on the AM5 socket, compatible with any motherboard that supports that, and it continues to have DDR5 and expanded support for PCIe 5.0 as well. Unlike Intel's latest chips, which require a whole new board.

There's also an iGPU thrown in for good measure based on the RDNA2 architecture, although to be absolutely clear, that's not something I'd recommend you use for gaming (that's a crown entirely reserved for the likes of the Ryzen 7 8700G and 8600G, respectively).

The real Achilles’ heel, though, is the pricing. Particularly how the 9900X competes with both the previous gen and Intel's now operational Core Ultra series too. On the surface, it initially looked like a good deal compared to the 7900X. At launch, it debuted at just $500 or £460 total, about $50 less than what the 7900X launched at. Since then, pricing has fallen further, and you can now pick one up for just shy of $380 or £390.

The only problem with that is what it's up against. Namely, Intel's Core Ultra 7 265K. Now, yes, Intel has been on the back foot, and it has taken its sweet time getting the Core Ultra 200 series fully operational, but recent price shuffles on its lineup have made the Ultra 7 in particular ridiculously aggressive in comparison. In fact, you can pick one of those up right now for $80 or £160 less than the 9900X, and that's a real problem for Team Red right there.

Performance

The metrics, though, they're kinda where you'd expect for a chip of this caliber. I've spent these last few weeks aggressively testing all of the CPUs I have at my disposal, across all manner of different benchmarks and workloads, on a consistent test bed. The Ryzen 9 9900X is also what I consider my primary CPU for testbeds in general as well, at least for the time being. I use it both here and for a few other brands I write for, as it's a nice middle-of-the-road chip for testing graphics cards and SSDs as well, particularly when combined with any of the X870E boards out there.

The good news is that, pound for pound, the 9900X puts in a seriously strong showing against Intel. Particularly if you can pair it with one of the best memory kits out there. Ideally, you're looking for a kit that's around the 6,400 MT/s mark to better take advantage of that Infinity Fabric scaling.

Infinity Fabric is effectively a PCIe-like interconnect woven between the core complexes. The unique thing about it is that its speed is directly tied to your RAM speed up to a certain point. So the faster your memory kit, the better the performance of your CPU. That said, it is very much a case of diminishing returns, and past a certain point, you'll no longer see improvements. That's why it's pivotal as a Ryzen user that your memory profile is always enabled in your motherboard BIOS.

We're not talking a huge amount of performance, no, it's not double or anything insane like that (DDR5 defaults to 4,800 MT/s after all) but it's enough to have a significant impact both in-game and in computational workloads. In some cases, it can bring improvements upwards of 10% or more. With that, I'm actually using a 64GB kit of Team Group T-Create at 6,000 MT/s, as it features both Intel XMP and AMD EXPO profiles, to keep timings tight and consistent across both platforms. You may see slightly better performance from a 6,400 - 7,000 MT/s kit and above.

RAM speeds aside, the 9900X did incredibly well in Cinebench 2024, putting in a strong showing of 1,767 in the multi-core test and 128 in single-core. Decent enough numbers, yet although the single core matched the Core Ultra 7, it did fall short somewhat on the multi-core, with a 9% difference between the two. Blender similarly saw a win when utilizing CPU only on Junkyard, by 7 samples, but again fell short when utilizing the graphics card. And then we get to the gaming…

So I test all the CPUs I get in with three separate titles at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. The games in question are designed to stress the CPU as best they can, either through entity loading, simulation, or frame-generation management. I use Total War: Warhammer 3 with its Mirrors of Madness benchmark, Cyberpunk 2077 with DLSS on Quality and MFG on x2, and Final Fantasy XIV Dawntrail with FSR enabled as well. All on the Ultra preset.

Because 1080p typically produces higher frame rates, you usually see larger performance jumps between chips, as they become the bottleneck for the graphics card at those higher frame-rate levels. That might not sound that important to the average Joe, but if you're a competitive esports player dabbling in the 200-300 fps range, and you've got a gaming monitor that can support it, it can be a big deal.

So, 1080p, then, is really interesting. The 9900X absolutely tanked in Total War compared to the Core Ultra 7, landing an abysmally poor 96.5 fps (admittedly better than the Ryzen 7 7700X, which only managed 89.9). Compare that to the Core Ultra 7, and it managed 109.8 fps. That's a 12% drop in comparable performance. Jump over to Final Fantasy, though, and the tables turn with Intel falling foul and AMD clawing back a win, with an 8% bump in average frame rates.

Why that's fascinating is that these differences dissipate at different resolutions. At 1440p, that Total War delta fades into nothing, yet AMD still has the edge over Intel in Final Fantasy with a 10fps difference on average frame rate. Jump up to 4K, and it's almost level pegging across all three titles with both chips, and if you take the averages across all three resolutions and average those, the two chips basically end up identical.

As for the old T&Ps, that too provided an interesting mixed bag of results. AMD's 9900X was marginally more efficient in heavy computational workloads than the Core Ultra 7 was, with 316W of draw in Cinebench versus 330W and 302W in Blender versus 315W for the Ultra 7. Temperatures ranged from 2 to 8 °C higher here as well, despite the lower power draw, but nothing too crazy to make me worry.

In-game, however, once more the coin flipped the other way, and AMD drew significantly more power than its Intel counterpart. Even at 4K, when CPU load should be diminished, there was a 25W difference in draw between the two. At a guess, I suspect that's down to AMD's idle states being significantly more hungry than Intel's.

Should you buy the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X?

Straight up answer here? Probably not. The issue right now is that it's just far too expensive for the improvements it gives you over the previous version of this processor. At $380, 9 months on, it's just not a tantalizing proposition. If you want pure gaming performance and are keen to stick with AMD, then you'll go for something like the Ryzen 7 7800X3D or its modern counterpart. If you want to go with pure multi-core grunt and something that's equally as gifted in gaming but for $80 less than, you'd go with Intel's Core Ultra 7 265K. If you want the absolute best bang for the buck, then Intel's last-generation Core i5-14600K is a far better pick across the board, no matter what.

That puts the Ryzen 9 9900X in a tricky position. On the surface, it's a well-balanced, nicely configured, new-generation chip that's efficient, decently optimized, and just works, particularly if you've got the supporting motherboard and RAM already. Yet, the sad reality is, even compared to AMD's own product stack with the likes of its X3D chips and more, it's just kinda dull. It doesn't stand out, and that's a real problem. When the CPU market is so heated right now, going for literally anything else will inevitably net you a better deal, and that ain't good.

How we tested the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X

Like all of the CPUs that I get in for review, I tested the 9900X in its own dedicated testbed with hardware that could be utilized across all of the other chips to eliminate any variables. Not only did I utilize a wide range of benchmarks and tests with the 9900X, mixing gaming and rendering, I also use this predominantly as my permanent test-bed CPU when benchmarking both SSDs and graphics cards as well, giving me an incredibly deep understanding of how it operates in Windows.

Additionally, throughout testing, I monitor average and maximum temperatures in each load segment and maximum power draw too. I also utilize a generated index that I create that averages performance out per dollar spent at its current pricing at the time of review.

For more on how we test gaming PCs and components, check out our full GamesRadar+ Hardware Policy.

Looking to build your perfect rig? Check out the best graphics cards, the best PC cases, and the best computer speakers.

Writing an AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D review in 2025 is a funny thing. Since this chip launched in 2023, it’s been revered as one of the absolute best gaming processors ever created. Now, however, it’s got stiff competition from the Ryzen 8000G and 9000 families, and its price amongst the Intel competition has become competitive as the two brands duke it out to provide the best value for money.

And yet, coming to this chip so long after release doesn’t actually make much of a difference, because despite being a top dog in the market for a while now, it’s got some incredible staying power. Is it still the best CPU for gaming? Very possibly for most gamers. Even compared to the Ryzen 7 option from the 8000G range, which I’ve already reviewed, it performs impeccably well in gaming tasks, and since it exists in the same motherboard ecosystem as AMD’s more recent efforts, it’s probably going to be a better investment than an Intel product.

Price, however, is the sword by which this processor will continue to live and die. Launching to the tune of $449.99 / £449.99 made it more expensive than Intel’s i5-13600K, and an interesting match-up on a spec sheet against the i7-13700K. Now, however, with an average price of below $400 / £400, it’s a much easier investment. Compared against some of the pricier Ryzen 9000 X3D options, it might be all that most gamers really need. Besides all the price and spec comparisons, though, I think its performance speaks for it.

Specs & Features

As usual with an AMD processor, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D has fewer cores and threads than the direct comparisons from Intel. That isn’t as bad as it seems though, especially due to the fact that this is one of AMD’s supercharged X3D models.

These processors set themselves apart with 3D V-Cache technology, but just what is that anyway? Well, modern processors found in the best gaming PCs have an L3 cache - a sort of quick access library for your computer’s CPU. It provides an organised and easy way for your chip to access frequently used data - which comes in particularly handy when playing games or creating content. AMD’s X3D products essentially pack more cache into the die of this particular part of the processor, meaning that they can access more data faster.

So while 8 cores and 16 threads might not seem like much compared to the Intel Core i7-13700K, which has 16 cores and 24 threads, AMD can actually do more with less, at least in theory. The 13th gen i7 has a base clock of 3.4GHz and a boost clock of 5.4Ghz. The base clock aboard the CPU I’m testing is higher, while the boost clock comes up just shy of Intel’s mark. Thankfully, some streamlined overclocking capabilities mean that it’s capable of surpassing that, although I haven’t tested that for myself. Either way, AMD trounces the 13700K’s L3 cache of 30MB, allowing for a lot of talent for gaming in a direct shootout. The updated 14700K doesn’t even come close to the 3D V-cache tech here either, with only 33MB.

While Intel’s 13th and even 14th generation i7 processors might feel like the most natural comparison in terms of raw specs, I think it’s also important to view this CPU in full context of the rest of the market too. Compared to the Intel Core i5-13600K, which has long held the top spot on our CPU leaderboard thanks to its excellent price-to-performance ratio, the 7800X3D makes a very good case for itself. That chip only has a 24MB L3 cache and a base clock speed of 3.5GHz. Of course, the elephant in the room, if you’re still trying to decide whether to build an AMD or Intel machine in 2025, is that motherboard support for LGA1700 (Intel’s 12th, 13th, and 14th) generations is almost certainly finished with. The AM5 platform for AMD’s chips is likely to continue well into the future, though, so even if you have to spend more here than you would on a 13600K, you’re going to be futureproofed in terms of Ryzen 9000X3D to graduate to without switching motherboard.

To tell the truth, the comparison I’m most interested in is the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G, the first Ryzen 7 to arrive on the shelves after this. The two have the same number of cores and threads, the same base clock speed, but a few subtle differences. The Ryzen 8000G option actually has an ever-so-slightly higher boost clock speed of 5.1GHz, but loses out in terms of cache with only 16MB. That leaves room for similar performance, but for either to impress in different ways. With the Ryzen 7 8700G only costing $229 / £218 at launch compared to the Ryzen 7 7800X3D’s $449 price tag, the X3D product has everything to lose.

Performance

Certainly in gaming, I think the results speak for themselves, and I’ll explain why in a moment, because content creation wasn’t quite so simple. In fact, thanks to its superb single-core performance and slightly higher boost clock, the 8700G actually outperformed its X3D cousin. Depending on the type of creation you do, you may save yourself a small fortune by opting for the 8700G after all.

Rather disappointingly, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D turned in lower Cinebench scores than the Ryzen 7 8700G. I’d say this is down to the excellent single core performance and slightly higher boost clock. On the other hand, the X3D model did pull its weight with three consistently higher scores in Blender’s benchmarks, so it’s not all doom and gloom for content creators.

I tested both CPUs in the same system, with the same thermal paste and the same cooler, and although the Ryzen 8700G had absolutely no problems staying cool under pressure, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D struggled a bit more. Now, all things in context, the Intel Raptor Lake (13th, 14th generation) chips are far, far hotter. The 13700K especially has proven to be a total hot head whenever I’ve tested it, so compared to the blue team, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D actually has pretty decent thermals. Still, you’d have no trouble at all keeping the 8700G cool, but the 7800X3D might call for a more intense AIO.

After completing the software benchmarks, I was honestly a little concerned that this processor wasn’t going to live up to its reputation, but in gaming, there were honestly some inexplicable boosts in performance I really didn’t expect. Based on specs, you can usually expect a small 10-20fps boost in your favorite games when you upgrade from one processor to an updated model. Comparing again to the Ryzen 8700G (again, let me emphasize that it came out after the CPU we’re testing here), I expected very similar results when gaming, but I was so shocked at the differences I had to have a double take to make sure I was still using the same GPU.

In Planet Zoo, for example, I was scraping to try and get 4K60fps in our AMD testing rig when benchmarking the Ryzen 5 and 7 from the 8000G generation. I thought for sure graduating from 59fps with the Ryzen 5 8600G, to a smoother 60fps with the 8700G, I’d maybe get 65 or 70fps with the 7800X3D from the previous year. At 4K, max settings, playing the same scenario as those other reviews, I was met with 95fps when zooming into the busiest sections of the park. When not fast forwarding time and zooming out, I was seeing well over 100fps, which is an extraordinary boost. All the while, temperature control was so much more manageable than it appeared in software benchmarking, with the CPU only peaking at a contextually chilly 32 degrees.

Sadly, Planet Zoo was the most dramatic leap up in performance I saw for the remainder of benchmarking, although the Cities Skylines results do come close to it. Compared to the 8700G, I found similar temperatures with sometimes 30-40fps leaps in frame rates. That’s undeniably a massive jump up in gaming performance, which goes to show the work a 3D V-Cache is doing. That sort of performance boost is what you’d expect from playing around with upscaling, and I love that AMD has crafted that through hardware innovation alone, rather than a software trick you never really have ownership over.

Just like Nvidia’s DLSS tricks, though, it seems like the 3D V-cache makes more of a difference in some games than others. Benchmarking results in Total War Warhammer 3 (as seen above) are virtually identical to the tests I ran with the more affordable 8700G. I did see a slight improvement in Homeworld 3’s benchmark though. I saw a clean 4K60 score with maxed out settings in this game, which is something the Ryzen 5 and 7 processors from the newer 8000G family failed to do.

Consistently higher gaming performance can be seen in each of our benchmarking tests, with temperatures that are well within the healthy range, although not quite as solid as the NZXT Player Three with its Ryzen 7 9800X3D. I do have to say though, in more general use tests, I’ve really enjoyed working with the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. Since it was inside the Maingear Zero Ruby I reviewed, I’ve had plenty of hands-on time with it. It’s one of those PC components I can turn to for any gaming task and just know that it’s going to be reliable. I’m a stickler for high frame rate, 4K gaming on PC, even with parts that might not lend themselves to that resolution organically. With the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, I feel I have loads of room to gallop at those higher resolutions to get the smooth frame rates I want, and that’s the marker of a great mid-range processor in this day and age.

Should you buy the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D?

With its reputation preceding it, it should come as no surprise that the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D is still one of the best CPUs on the market when it comes to gaming. I do think that as the market has shaped itself around these processors as the be-all, end-all, there are now super viable alternatives depending on your usage. For example, if you don’t quite have the budget for even the discounted price of $380, a Ryzen 7 8700G really isn’t too far off in terms of performance in gaming and content creation - with some scenarios actually performing better.

But for those PC builders looking for a serious gaming processor that can handle 4K resolutions and demanding content creation tasks, this is going to wipe the floor with 90% of the options on the shelves. I can understand the temptation to go for an even more recent Ryzen 9000 equivalent, but honestly, for the extra money you pay, this might be a better alternative at the moment, and it’ll give you an upgrade path further down the line. In fairness, this processor is really popular, so it’s likely to hold its price for longer than other options, but I’d say it’s still better value than Intel.

If there’s one thing that’s sure in my mind at the moment, it’s that the majority of computer builders right now should be considering this chip over the Intel equivalents from the 13th and 14th generation. An Arrow Lake processor will require an even more up-to-date motherboard, which, if rumours are true, might not even survive Intel’s next wave of processors. With AMD showing it can do exceptional things with older motherboard sockets, fewer cores and threads, and at a lower cost, I think a chip like this is going to be a much better investment going forward.

For more on PC components, check out the best RAM for gaming, the best graphics cards, and the best PC cases.

AMD's most powerful desktop processors launch today, so I don't blame you for wondering where to buy the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D. After a reveal at CES at the start of the year, we finally got official launch dates and pricing for AMD's new Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Ryzen 9 9900X3D CPUs. The beefy 9950X3D rests at $699.99 while the 9900X3D costs $599.99, and either will allow you to harness some serious gaming and content creation power thanks to their 3D V-cache technology.

These two processors are bound to shake up the best CPU for gaming landscape, especially compared to Intel's latest desktop processors which haven't been getting rave reports from gamers and content creators. From a look around the virtual stores this morning, it seems like Newegg is the place to be in the US if you want to secure stock of the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D for $699.99. Be warned though, the listings already say that they're out of stock, despite also having a line to say that orders will go live at 6 am PST. So maybe act quickly if you want to buy today.

In the UK, I haven't seen any stock of the new processors until now, at Scan. You can grab the Ryzen 9 9950X3D for £699.98 there. I'll be keeping an eye on this for the rest of the day, so if and when I see retailers on either side of the Atlantic joining the party, I'll let you know.

Should you buy the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Ryzen 9 9900X3D?

It goes without saying, but these are definitely the sorts of processors you should only be considering if you're trying to build the absolute best gaming PC you can. They're both upgraded versions of the Ryzen 9 chips from the most recent AMD Ryzen 9000 family, which means they're going to give even more of a performance boost than what's out there already. If you're not an enthusiast, pro-level content creator, or gamer who plays at 4K Max settings at all times, there's probably no need to spend this much.

If you are on the enthusiast level though, this is an exciting day. The Ryzen 9 9950X3D offers an 8% increase in performance over the last-gen equivalent when gaming at 1080p. For content creation programs, AMD found in its internal testing a 13% boost in performance. Usually, AMD has fewer cores and threads than Intel's chips, but with a generous 16 to 32 ratio in the 9950X3D, you won't be short on any spec sheet.

The Ryzen 9900X3D may seem a bit weak in comparison, but it's still viable, especially for those who want a less power-hungry chip running their machine. 120W of TDP is a bit more reserved than the 170W you'll need for the flagship, and for $100 less, you're only missing 4MB of cache and 0.2GHz worth of max boost clock.

Just keep in mind that you don't need to spend this much for solid 4K gaming these days. Yes, if you want to play loads of city builders and RTS games with no settings compromises, I can understand your need for these processors. However, most gamers can opt for a much more affordable AMD Ryzen 5 8600G and still get playable frame rates in these games at 4K.

Looking for more PC upgrades this year? Check out the best RAM for gaming, the best computer speakers, and the best graphics cards.

AMD's Radeon RX 9070 GPUs are fast becoming the best-selling ones on Amazing right now, and they've earned a lot of praise from PC gamers for their dedication to native power over AI enhancements. They also wear super-reasonable price tags in comparison to most 16GB, 4K GPUs, and that's not exactly anything new for this brand. AMD has been the scrappy, undercutting underdog of the PC gaming market for a while now, but it feels like this tactic is finally starting to pay off in 2025.

The GPU market may seem like a pretty clear-cut race between Nvidia and AMD, but in truth, there are loads of horses to bet on. There's also Intel's products, there's the board partners like MSI, Asus, PNY, and Zotac, who make their own versions of each GPU and retail them for their own prices. If you're looking for a real two-horse race, you only need to look as far as the best CPUs for gaming.

Looking at Steam's hardware survey each month, you'll see a clear divide between Intel and AMD, and Intel is still way out in front. For years it's been the go-to brand that everyone knows best and aspires to get for their gaming PCs. AMD has always looked to entice budget builders, but its recent strides to engineer for content creators, gamers, and enthusiasts are starting to land them in good stead - the X3D processors it creates are swiftly becoming the most popular choices for all of those categories.

All the while, Intel hasn't had the best time of it of late. Its 13th and 14th generations of desktop processors had a major PR crisis last year as the Raptor Lake products faced widespread reports of instability. Its much-anticipated Arrow Lake, Intel Core Ultra desktop CPUs also launched late in 2024, but their gaming results have really underperformed for gamers in reviews. They're also more expensive than AMD's offerings, and thanks to a new naming scheme, they're terrifically confusing.

Topping all of that off, Intel has now moved onto a new motherboard socket, and given the company's track record, that means no more support for anyone who bought a 12th, 13th, or 14th generation processor and wants to be able to upgrade without rebuilding from scratch on a brand new motherboard. This can prove costly, and for the sorts of performance improvements Intel is demonstrating with Arrow Lake, it doesn't exactly seem worth it, does it?

There are conversations to be had about the lifespan of a gaming PC these days, and I'm not sure a system with an Alder Lake chip from 2021 has any right to be dubbed as "old".

The difference in that respect is night and day between Intel and AMD. I bought my first gaming PC in 2020 and it used a Ryzen 3000 CPU. That generation plugs into an AM4 CPU socket which first launched in 2016, and AMD is still supporting it with new, compatible processors through its extended Ryzen 5000 Series products. That's nearly a decade of support for people who don't want to upgrade to a new system, and while I'd argue that's maybe a little long in the tooth for any PC that's used for gaming on a regular basis, it's unmatched good-faith for AMD's consumers.

The Ryzen 9000 Series plugs into the AM5 socket that's been used by the Ryzen 7000 and 8000G families. This was AMD's first DDR5-compatible motherboard socket, and thanks to now three full generations of processors, there's already an amazing upgrade path for anyone who adopts this motherboard. What's more, AMD has already committed to supporting the AM5 platform through 2027 at least, so anyone who has built a PC in the last five years won't need to think about a new system again until well into the future.

This has been a particularly difficult generation to get consumers to buy into, from the perspective of AMD and Intel. The arrival of DDR5 RAM has called for new motherboards for all, but the prices of that memory combined with a new motherboard and CPU is a tidy sum for most gamers who already poured a lot of money into their DDR4 systems, let alone the best graphics cards. So for Intel to switch motherboard sockets in 2024, demanding yet another new motherboard is doing nothing but fueling AMD's momentum.

Admittedly, I haven't gone hands-on with any of the new Intel Core Ultra processors yet, but it's hard to recommend the idea of a new motherboard and CPU solely for Intel's benefit. If I were building a PC today, be it a budget, entry-level machine, or an enthusiast-grade powerhouse, I'd be building with AMD.

For more PC upgrades, check out the best RAM for gaming, the best computer speakers, and the best PC cases.

Every time I go looking for a decent priced GPU in 2025, I always run into the RX 7800 XT. It's one of the only mid-range cards I've spotted recently that's not astronomically more than MSRP, and while it'll naturally fall short compared to the RX 9070 and RTX 5070, it's still packs a decent punch for under $600. Oh, and did I mention it comes with Monster Hunter Wilds right now? Yep.

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT I'd specifically grab right now is the XFX SWFT 210, largely because it's going for $520.56 at Amazon. It's still just over $20 more than MSRP, but since other custom models are sitting just under $900 at Newegg, it's safe to say this best graphics card contender is still priced sensibly.

Technically, since the RX 7800 XT comes with Monster Hunter Wilds, you could take its $69.99 MSRP off of the card's Amazon price. That'll mean that all in you're paying $450.57, which is a nice saving if you need a gaming PC upgrade and are looking to pick up Capcom's latest role playing caper.

Normally, I would advise holding out for RX 9070 XT stock or opting for the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070, but if I'm being real, neither option is viable right now. Shortages are once again plaguing the PC gaming scene and have effectively postponed the next-generation of GPUs. It's for that reason that I can still recommend the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT with my full chest, as even if it can't quite boost fps to the same level as new mid-rangers, those might as well not exist if they're unobtainable.

As for what to expect from the RX 7800 XT performance-wise, here's some insights. During testing, the RDNA 3 card performed admirably handling Returnal with ultra 4K settings enabled, hitting a 60fps average. Sony's PC port is pretty taxing, so seeing the card hit that sweet spot was reassuring. It also pulled nice moves in Hitman 3 with the same settings applied, managing around 116fps, which isn't remotely shabby.

If you prefer to turn on fancy ray tracing options, the RX 7800 XT can pull off fancy lighting by either stepping things back to 1440p (the resolution it's probably better suited to) or by using FSR and Fluid Motion Frames, AMD's take on Frame Generation. Unlike with Nvidia GPUs, you can actually switch on the red team's FG techniques in any game at a driver level, which will give you a nice boost if in outings less reliant on low latency.

It'd be pretty hilarious if the RX 7800 XT didn't meet Monster Hunter Wilds system requirements since it's bundled with the GPU, but it thankfully does so comfortably. Capcom recommends using an 8GB card like the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060, and AMD's mid-range contender more than meets the mark with 16GB GDDR6 VRAM. You might need to fiddle with a few settings if you want to play at 4K without much compromise, but you'll ultimately end up with an experience that looks great and runs at a more than acceptable frame rate.

I'll be keeping a close eye on the GPU availability situation throughout 2025, and I'll no doubt recommend more cards like the RX 7800 XT if they're available. Since RTX 5080 stock has been a bust since launch and the RTX 5090 might as well be a unicorn, I personally believe the best approach is to embrace whatever is actually obtainable for as near MSRP as possible, rather than tormenting yourself with GPUs that practically don't exist.

Planning a full rig revamp? Swing by the best CPU for gaming and the best gaming RAM for recommended components. Alternatively, take a peek at the best Alienware gaming PC builds for out of this world Aurora machines.

AMD Radeon RX 9070 stock will hit retailers shortly, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't nervous about availability. That said, AMD will be onto a winner if its new Radeon range can stick around for even slightly longer than the RTX 5070 since Nvidia's mid-range GPU wasn't practically available to buy at launch.

Ideally, you'll want to start thinking about where to buy AMD Radeon RX 9070 series graphics cards before launch time. I'd be surprised if the GPU isn't in high demand since it's already arguably beating the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 in the best graphics card race and the red team's GeForce RTX 5070 Ti rival, the RX 9070 XT, comes in at $599.

The base RX 9070 model is also designed to distract you from RTX 5070 stock at $549, and since Nvidia's card is non-existent right now, it's the GPU most mid-range PC players will be flocking towards. The thing that really has me worried is that even if AMD's inventory is plentiful, it could still end up vanishing at retailers fairly quickly since last-gen graphics cards are largely only available for way above MSRP.

AMD Radeon RX 9070 stock checks: US quick links

• Amazon: Check for third party stock
• Newegg: More focused supply could mean success
• Best Buy: Stocks a wide range of GPUs

AMD Radeon RX 9070 stock checks: UK quick links

• Amazon: Wider range of suppliers
• Scan: Has been strong at launch in the past
• Overclockers: Often one of the first to stock
• Currys: Check for third parties
• Ebuyer: Listing pages active now

Will RX 9070 series stock hold out?

There are a couple of key takeaways when it comes to RX 9070 stock and whether it'll remain available at launch. The first is that retailers like Newegg haven't got any models listed ahead of time right now, which might be the retailer's way of trying to combat bots snatching up GPUs as soon as they're available to buy. That does mean you'll have to be super speedy and head to storefronts as soon as the clock strikes 8am, but it may at least mean that the 'add to cart' button can stick around for more than a few microseconds.

The other thing to consider is that the RX 9070 series is arguably even more gaming focussed than Nvidia's cards. That's not to say the GeForce RTX 5080 isn't designed to run Steam games, but RTX 5090 stock was almost definitely snatched up by a large number of AI enthusiasts looking to mess around with that side of things. While RDNA 4 cards do boast their own FSR 4 and Frame Generation abilities for boosting fps, I don't think they'll necessarily be snapped up for running AI models or messing around with generative nonsense.

As for past general availability, AMD traditionally tends to have graphics cards readily available at retailers for not much over MSRP. You will be at the mercy of custom card pricing as always, and that could mean paying beyond $600 for some versions. But, last-gen RDNA 3 supplies were pretty healthy up until recently, and next-gen Radeon GPUs will ideally be easy to get a hold of compared to Nvidia's Blackwell.

I'll be keeping a very close eye on RX 9070 stock over the next few hours, and I'm hopeful that retailers will have plenty to go around. Will I be surprised if we're faced with yet another launch where there isn't actually anything available to buy? Not really, but if we instantly get the out of stock treatment, it'd be practically like there was no launch in the first place.

In the words of Fry, (kindly) shut up and take my money!

Upgrading your rig? Swing by the best RAM for gaming and the best gaming CPU for vital components. You'll also want to check out the best PC cases if you're starting from scratch.

RTX 9070 stock is holding out much better than Nvidia's entire RTX 50-series, but MSRP models are now largely out of stock. I am still seeing some GPUs spring back to life intermitted, which is probably the result of cancelled orders and other changes of mind, so it's well worth refreshing listings at Newegg and Best Buy for updates.

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is set to become AMD's latest best graphics card contender, but it's not what I'd describe as a premium GPU. Don't get me wrong, $600 is still a hearty investment, but it's not designed to take on the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 or Nvidia's monstrous RTX 5090 flagship. Instead, it'll be jumping in the ring with the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti while the vanilla RX 9070 tries to distract you from RTX 5070 stock when it becomes available again.

Those of you looking for RX 9070 stock might want to immediately jump on options like this SAPPHIRE PULSE Radeon model for $549 at Newegg. I've saw that specific version come back twice since 9am, and I reckon it's the card you're most likely to get today at MSRP.

Where to buy RX 9070 series GPUs in the US

Where to buy RTX 5070 in the UK

Where to buy RX 9070 series graphics cards: FAQ

Should you buy an RX 9070 series graphics card?

I'll be looking to put both the RX 9070 and RX 9070 XT to the test before making any solid recommendations, but AMD's mid-range RDNA 4 options could be worth considering. Not only are they aiming to provide 4K performance for under $600, but the red team claims the duo will rival the new RTX 5070 Ti and RTX 5070 when it comes to "performance per dollar."

There are a few stand-out differences between AMD's RDNA 4 GPUs and Nvidia's Blackwell cards. For starters, the latter comes armed with faster 16GB GDDR7 VRAM modules, whereas the RX 9070 models stick with older 16GB GDDR6 memory. Whether this will have a huge impact on frame rates remains to be seen, but it does play a role in keeping Radeon prices lower this generation.

The other biggie is that the RX 9070 XT is $150 less than the RTX 5070 Ti. While you'd think that'd put the Radeon card in a lower class, AMD claims that the graphics card can practically match the Blackwell model's native 4K and ray tracing-enabled benchmarks, with the base XT coming in at just 2% slower. Switch that card out for a custom overclocked model, and the component giant says it's 2% faster, but this is based on in-house results across 30 games.

It's a little too early for me to say whether you should buy an RX 9070 series graphics card over an RTX 5070 series GPU. However, I will be looking to test both options side by side and declare a mid-range champion, so I'll keep you updated with my own independent benchmarks and overall impressions. What I will say is that I'm keen to see how AI upscaling tools like DLSS 4 and AMD FSR 4 change the experience at hand, especially since Nvidia is keen for features like Multi-Frame Generation to become intrinsic to the PC gaming experience.

Looking for more graphics cards? Check out where to buy the RTX 5080 and where to buy the RTX 5090 for premium 4K options. You'll also want to peek at the best CPUs for gaming if you're building a rig from scratch.

AMD just officially unveiled its Radeon RX 9070 and RX 9070 XT graphics cards, and I'm absolutely thrilled at the price we're getting on March 6. Designed to take on Nvidia's RTX 5070 series, the GPUs with come in at $549 and $599 respectively and the XT will boast up to 42% better performance than the last gen RX 7900 GRE.

It's pretty clear that AMD isn't gunning for the best graphics card crown this generation. Instead, it's sending cards like the RX 9070 and RX 9070 XT into the mid-range battlefield to take on the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Ti and its cheaper RTX 5070 sibling, I initially had fears that the red team would pick the wrong price point for these cards, but with the XT model coming in $150 cheaper than the new Blackwell card, I think we could be looking at a proper middle ground scrap.

AMD CEO Lisa Su previously claimed the company was aiming to cater to the "highest volume portion of the enthusiast gaming market," which explains why it's primarily focussing on mid-range graphics cards like the RX 9070 and RX 9070 XT for now. I'm personally all for graphics cards that cost a chunk under $1,000, even if options like the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 and its monstrous RTX 5090 sibling can practically pull off 4K PC gaming with zero compromise.

Should you buy an RX 9070 series graphics card?

Now that AMD has lifted the lid on its RX 9070 series GPUs, there are a few takeaways to consider. The first is that the RX 9070 XT beats the RTX 5070 Ti on price while allegedly providing 23% better gaming performance "per dollar" across 30 games. That's according to in-house benchmarks, and it's more based on the price in correlation to frame rates rather than actually boosting fps higher. Still, it's a bold claim that makes the XT even more attractive as a mid-range option.

Naturally, I'll be looking to benchmark the AMD Radeon RX 9070 and the XT model, and that'll ultimately help me decide whether they're worth buying over RTX 5070 series cards. The green team is learning pretty heavily about making AI upscaling and Multi-Frame Generation an intrinsic part of running PC games, and while alternatives like FSR 4 will provide similar fps-boosting abilities, RDNA 4 could be where players adverse to AI end up turning.

The RX 9070 Series will officially land on March 6, so watch this space for stock updates and more. If you'd rather stick with the green team, you'll also want to keep an eye on RTX 5070 stock since the non-Ti card will roll into town on March 5.

Looking for more components? Check out the best gaming CPU and the best RAM for gaming. Alternatively, take a peek at the best gaming handhelds if you want a machine you can take on the go.

I've been playing the hell out of Avowed over the last few days, and I've been doing it all on a tablet. I'm not talking about Xbox streaming via an iPad or Samsung Galaxy - this is full native Windows 11 gameplay running through an Asus ROG Flow Z13. It's like magic.

There's no dedicated graphics card in this screen-only device, instead Asus has packed it with the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390, a Strix Halo CPU announced only last month. The AI-focused processor combines 12 Zen 5 CPU cores (and 24 threads) with 32 graphics cores. The chip can clock at up to 5GHz, drawing a massive 120W in the process. That's a lot of power for the best gaming tablet on the market, but I'm more excited by what this chip can bring to the smaller screen. After all, both industries are playing the same game, they both want to make their mobile devices as efficient as possible, and the last few years' worth of developments in the world of gaming laptops and other portable devices has shown just how quickly this tech is shrinking. The handy thing about tablets is they're doing all this a few years ahead of handhelds, so they provide a pretty secure model for mapping a similar timeline.

The last Asus ROG Flow Z13 I tested came with a full RTX 3050 Ti whirring away under the hood, hitting framerates around 50% lower than those of the 2025 model in FHD. That was three years ago, before the world had even set eyes on an Asus ROG Ally or Lenovo Legion Go. Sure, PC handhelds have been around for much longer than these mainstream flagships, but as prices drop and focuses turn to efficiency in the mobile market, a much faster pace has been set. Even the best gaming handhelds are still considerably less powerful than the Asus ROG Flow Z13 - and they're always going to be. They're much smaller, have to house a lot more tech in the same compartments, need to dedicate more power to their batteries, and are roughly a quarter of the price. I'd never expect to see an AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 in a handheld system, it's just too power-hungry to work in these smaller chassis'.

The PC handheld industry is still relatively young - it's hit the mainstream like a ton of bricks in the last few years, but it's yet to hit its true potential. I can't run Avowed on my Asus ROG Ally without it looking like a PS2 game - these aren't miraculous Triple-A machines... yet.

Give it a few more years

I've re-run benchmarking tests on the Asus ROG Ally, and Phil's taken new numbers from the Ayaneo Flip DS, and the gap between today's handhelds and yesteryear's tablets isn't massive. The difference between Time Spy and Fire Strike benchmarks between the old ROG Flow (RTX 3050 Ti) and the current slate of some of the most powerful handhelds is one I would expect to see between equally powerful devices running in different form factors. Cooling and size plays a massive role in how performant a device will be once a game is actually loaded up. It was certainly throttling the ROG Flow Z13 back in 2022, but the 2025 model's score shows just how far we've come.

In three years, the Asus ROG Flow Z13 has increased its overall performance by around 89% on average between these two tests (52% in Time Spy and 124% in Fire Strike). Of course, that's not all down to AMD's super efficient AI chip - Asus has made improvements in thermal design and its own engineering processes as well. That's still a big leap in three years - and as the same developments filter down to the cheaper handheld spectrum, I'm hopeful we'll see similar progression on the smaller screen.

Should the same timeline of growth hold out for handhelds (and not taking into account the increase in speed we see as technology develops), a worst case scenario is that a machine like the Asus ROG Ally will run at a Time Spy score of 4932 and Fire Strike of 16,768 in three years time. That's not quite Triple-A yet - give it another three years on the same trajectory (though again, things may well speed up) and we're looking at 37,560 in Fire Strike. Suddenly we're at RTX 4090 power.

This is all to be taken with a heavy dump of salt. Nothing is as easy to prove wrong or argue against as speculative figures based on compounding percentage increases, but it goes a long way to rationalizing my excitement about the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390. Even more so, it shows just what we could be capable of should we continue to put as much effort into our mobile SoC efficiencies from a PC gaming standpoint.

The Z2 Extreme is an SoC with eight total CPU cores (three Zen 5 and five Zen 5c), and it already represents a considerable leap over the Z1 model. Using 16 RDNA 3.5 graphics cores, this chip focuses on efficiency, squeezing as much power as it can out of its system without draining your battery. It's set to debut with the Lenovo Legion Go 2 later this year, and while it won't turn handhelds into blockbuster ray-tracing powerhouses, I'll certainly be interested to see how far along this journey we've already travelled.

For more portable play, check out the best gaming phones and best mobile controllers on the market, or take a look at the best gaming PCs for cutting edge performance.

Looks like an RTX 5070 release date delay could be on the cards, as whispers of a March launch have surfaced. There's still a chance the vanilla GPU will launch alongside its RTX 5070 Ti sibling this month, but I have a funny feeling Nvidia has shifted its plans to take on the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT.

The best graphics card race this generation is off to a weird start. Not only are the GeForce RTX 5080 and RTX 5080 going practically unchallenged right now, but AMD is being allusive with Radeon RX 9070 XT details. All I can really say for certain right now is that the red team's GPU will target mainstream players looking for affordable 4K performance, and if rumors shared by reliable leaker MEGAsizeGPU hold true, the RTX 5070 could be doing the same this March.

The insider specifically says the RTX 5070 will be "on the shelf in early March", which effectively points towards the official release being on the same day. I actually think this delay could be a good thing, as, with RTX 5080 listings and RTX 5090 stock selling out practically instantly upon arrival, Nvidia will likely be looking to bolster supplies and make sure retailers are well-stocked.

After all, we are talking about a $549 next-gen GPU that Nvidia claims will keep up with the GeForce RTX 4090. I'd be surprised if that didn't instantly make a lot of you want to buy an RTX 5070 at release, and it'll likely put the pressure on AMD to keep its RX 9070 XT pricing low.

At the same time, the RTX 5070 Ti is still on track to launch this month, meaning Nvidia will have a contender effectively flanking the RX 9070 XT. Whether or not that tactic will help fend off the mid-range GPU fully depends on AMD's final pricing, as the card could end up being a middle-ground option that strikes a balance between price and performance.

I'll be looking to give both GPUs the review treatment over the next month, and only proper benchmarks will point toward a true mid-range champion. There's always a chance that if Nvidia does try and shift its 5070 launch to match the RX 9070 XT, AMD will simply nudge things forward to gain some sort of advantage in a neverending GPU release date chicken.

If that happens, at least both GPU makers will have time to boost their inventory.

Building a new rig? Check out the best CPU for gaming and the best gaming RAM for vital components. Alternatively, check out the best gaming handheld if you'd rather go outside with your Steam library.

Let's be real – the RX 9070 XT isn't remotely an RTX 5090 rival, but AMD is allegedly working on a model with 32GB VRAM. That's right. The red team is potentially pairing a mid-range GPU with the same memory as Nvidia's $2,000 flagship graphics card, and I can't be the only one who finds that a little weird.

Perhaps AMD is warming up to taking on the RTX 5090 in the best graphics card ring. Or, maybe it's simply responding to the groans of PC players who think expensive GPUs should boast even more VRAM than last generation. Reasoning aside, leaks shared at Chiphell claim a 32GB RX 9070 could arrive this year (via Videocardz). The variant is still apparently "under discussion" but we could see it as soon as Q2 if specs are finalized.

My first thought was that there's no way this is a gaming SKU, but the leaker says the model should be a "gaming" card, hence the 9070 XT branding. That said, the insider contradicts themselves by saying the GPU is also "mainly for AI," which in turn means the price will be much higher than the confirmed vanilla variant.

More memory for the mid-range GPU masses, but at what cost?

The idea of a mid-range GPU like the RX 9070 XT with 32GB VRAM is a bit of a head-scratcher. It almost feels like AMD is taunting Nvidia off the back of its GeForce RTX 5080 release since it sticks with 16GB. That's likely nothing to do with the allegedly planned SKU, and it's likely another case of trying to get gaming graphics cards to pull off extra curriculum AI tricks instead.

I'm maybe calling this a little early, but I don't think you should wait for the RX 9070 XT with 32GB VRAM if it does come to be. For starters, I can't even begin to imagine what that configuration would look like since the 70-class cards should use GDDR6 instead, in turn meaning it'd have to go with 2GB chips. Some quick maths suggests the card would theoretically have to pack 16 modules into its design, which could mean we end up with a pretty chonky card.

Just to reiterate, we're talking about a mid-range graphics card here that'll provide a similar punch to the Radeon RX 7800 XT. While more memory will help increase your odds of running new games at higher resolutions in the future, it can't help RDNA 4 GPUs like the Navi 48 XT boost fps beyond their natural capabilities. I've already encountered situations like this while testing the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti and its 16GB sibling, as doubling VRAM did very little to boost fps.

As always, I'd keep your faithful salt shaker handy when ingesting any RX 9070 32GB rumors. I'm not completely writing off the model's existence or the idea that discussions are taking place at AMD, but it feels like the sort of idea that'll never escape the drawing board.

Looking for more components? Swing by the best CPU for gaming and best gaming RAM for ways to revamp your rig. Alternatively, check out the best gaming handheld for ways to play your Steam games outside.

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700G has an awful lot to live up to. If you keep up with desktop processor news, you’ll probably have heard tall tales about the last few iterations of Ryzen 7 processors. Word has it these chips shoot lightning bolts out of their cores, their threads might as well be made of stardust, and no other option can stand against their tremendous gaming and content creation might.

The Ryzen 8000G family arrived early in 2024, and people immediately looked to the Ryzen 7 8700G because it was the first chip to bear that name since the somewhat revolutionary Ryzen 7 7800X3D - still touted by many as the best CPU for gaming. Stripped of that chip’s 3D V-cache technology though, this version isn’t necessarily trying to be “better” at gaming, because it takes a slightly different approach.

The ethos of this CPU is to provide people with enough integrated graphics power that they no longer need a separate graphics card in order to own a gaming PC. Of course, we here at GamesRadar+ don’t really believe that, because although you can get by with just a CPU if you’re playing non-demanding games at 1080p, a graphics card is really going to be the sword that knights your rig with its “gaming” status. So, is the Ryzen 7 8700G still worth considering as a performance leap over the Ryzen 5 from this generation, or should you look to AMD’s other options instead?

Specs & Features

A few onlookers weren’t too happy with the specs sheet of this processor when it was first revealed, particularly because there are a few side-by-sides with the AMD Ryzen 5 8600G that don’t exactly warrant its price increase. For example, both processors use the same 16MB L3 cache, and the Ryzen 5 actually has a slightly faster Base Clock speed of 4.3GHz. Admittedly, the Boost Clock speed of the 8700G is faster in a head-to-head, so it’s not all bad. Still, if I were paying more for a Ryzen 7 model, I’d want faster speeds in both categories.

Of course, the internal graphics are going to be a big draw for people with this processor, and with the AMD Ryzen 8700G rocking Radeon 760M graphics, 12 dedicated graphics cores, DirectX12 compatibility, and a graphics clock of 2900MHz, it’ll do as a stop-gap for anyone building one of the best gaming PCs if they’re pulling parts together gradually and waiting for a graphics card. Again, let me stress that as games continue to get more demanding, a dedicated graphics card is going to become a necessity for you, but internal graphics processing power has come a long way, and AMD has been at the forefront of that for a while now.

The Ryzen 8000G family all feature Zen 4 architecture, the same as the Ryzen 7000 range, and as a result, they sit on the same AM5 CPU socket. It may please owners of previous AMD processors that this socket has converted to Intel’s design philosophy to make installation easier. The connecting pins of these CPUs are on the socket, meaning slotting a processor into place is a real breeze, and there’s less risk of you bricking it before your first boot-up.

Up from 6 cores and 12 threads on the 8600G, the Ryzen 7 8700G sports 8 cores and 16 threads. As usual for AMD, this isn’t anywhere near the equivalent Intel processor in comparison. The Intel Core i7-14700K is next on my list of processors to test, and since it’s the direct competitor to this chip in terms of generational tiers, it may surprise you to know that it rocks 20 cores and 28 threads. Even compared to the Intel Core i7-13700K, the Ryzen 7 8700G looks a bit behind the times, with that chip utilizing a similar 16 cores but 24 threads to support them.

All of that said, the Ryzen 7 8700G comes in cheaper than the Intel competition, especially now that the Ryzen 9000 family has hit the shelves. At launch, this chip would set you back $329 / £270, but it can frequently be found discounted in 2025, with a $255 price tag at Amazon at the time of writing, and a £239 sticker at Overclockers in the UK.

For that money, you get your expected DDR5 compatibility, and if you’re planning on pairing it with the best RAM for gaming, you’ll have all the AMD EXPO abilities you could want to play around with clock speeds and RAM timings. Also in the box is a chunky CPU fan, which is a nice addition considering a lot of desktop processors refuse to launch with them these days.

Performance

Besides a brief initial test, I put the Ryzen 7 8700G’s integrated graphics power to one side for this review. I was able to launch and play simple games with very few demands like The Red Strings Club, but wavering into deeper territory I struggled. I couldn’t launch STRAFTAT 1v1, for example, and while using integrated graphics I felt the PC slow down more generally, so your mileage may vary here. Regardless my main interest in this CPU is in whether or not it’s capable of offering decent performance when paired with a GPU, and whether or not it gives enough of a gaming boost compared to the more affordable Ryzen 5 8600G.

For that reason, I decided to stick to the exact same set of benchmarking games as I did for the Ryzen 5. I would usually perform the same formal benchmarks with a few different games thrown in for good measure, but I was curious to see how both processors would compare directly, especially running gaming tasks at 4K.

Before getting to the gaming stage though, I have a quick caveat to address. Although I do all my CPU testing these days with RAM set to 6,000MHz, I couldn't get this processor to post above the advertised 5,200MHz recommended speed from AMD. This was despite having the same RAM set to 6,000MHz during my Ryzen 5 review, which is a bit strange. I’m unsure whether this is our AMD testing motherboard being quirky, or a fault of the CPU, but nonetheless, it’s something to be wary of if you end up choosing this processor.

To get the CPU warmed up before jumping into gaming benchmarks, I ran it through Cinebench and Blender’s assault courses. To tell the truth, having not been too pleased with the Ryzen performance in these benchmarks in either the Ryzen 5 8600G or the Ryzen 7 7800X3D housed in the Maingear Zero Ruby, I didn’t have high expectations. With the scores the 8700G produced though, I was pleasantly surprised. Yes, they were tested in different systems, but the Maingear Zero Ruby’s processor (3D V-cache and all) scored a Single Core Cinebench result of 1829 pts. The 8700G showed on-par Single Core performance with 1821 pts.

I’m used to the Cinebench tests making chips audibly sweat, with fans kicking up to high heaven, but in both the Single and Multicore benchmarks for the Ryzen 7 8700G, it didn’t peak above 73 degrees, which is cooler than its smaller sibling Ryzen 5 - and that’s while using the same cooler. In fact, this chip needs to be commended for its temperature control, because there wasn’t a stress test I threw at it where it went above 73°C, with ambient temperatures being as low as in the 20s, and average gaming temperatures sticking around the 40-50°C mark. Could this extra cooling performance be down to the different thermal pastes applied? Potentially, but the fact this processor is capable of staying so cool compared to Intel’s equivalents is a massive boon.

Next, it was time for some gaming tests, and since I discovered in my Ryzen 5 review that unexpected 4K performance was the name of the game, this Ryzen 7 was going to be thrown through the same wringer.

As you may expect from the spec comparison, this chip performed very similarly to the Ryzen 5 in these benchmarks, likely due to the exact same L3 cache and slower base clock. What’s interesting is that the Ryzen 7 ran cooler, and had a much lower percentage of use than the Ryzen 5, but both produced almost identical frame rates. The 7 8700G of course had higher power demands, as you may expect from a higher-tier product.

These weren’t the only games I tested in though, and before you go thinking that there’s literally no benefit in buying this CPU, let me tell you about where 4K gaming results were improved. Planet Zoo, for example, running the exact same scenario as in my Ryzen 5 review, came out with a rock solid 4K 60fps result. With the Ryzen 5, I got 59fps but wasn’t what I’d call steady. It needed some settings dialed down in order to achieve the 60fps “playable” mark. Yes, this Ryzen 7 was only a slight improvement, but it did make a fairly tricky city builder run very smoothly indeed.

Homeworld 3 was a similar story. The Ryzen 5 scored 45fps in its benchmark with every setting set to its highest, and although I had to scale back a few settings to really get it up to 60fps, the Ryzen 7 had a 10fps boost out of the gate, scoring 56fps at the highest settings.

And finally, it was time to put the Ryzen 7 to the test in some less-optimized gaming scenarios. Cities Skylines has some incredibly demanding fan-made scenarios, and if I were shopping for a new CPU these days knowing I was going to point it at these types of games, I’d want an idea of how they’d be handled. Keep in mind that the following results aren’t as formalized as the benchmarks in Total War, since they’re an average taken from playing rather than a standard benchmarking test.

There are slight improvements over the Ryzen 5 here, particularly in the percentage used, and how stable the frame rates were while playing. Still, the story of the numbers here shows that there really isn’t as much of a performance gain for this Ryzen 7 when it comes to gaming. Single-core performance, content creation tasks, and staying cool under pressure are going to be big benefits for some users, but if anything, this review just goes to show how good the Ryzen 5 8600G is for its price.

Should you buy the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G?

For its lack of gaming performance boosts over its Ryzen 5 sibling, there are still reasons I’d recommend the Ryzen 7 8700G. First of all, if you’re building a gaming PC and you can’t get a graphics card right away, or you’re mainly building a PC for work and you’re only planning on playing some cozy games every once in a while, this might be enough for you until you want some upgrades. If you plan to branch out above 1080p though, maybe don’t set your expectations too high.

If you like the look of the Ryzen 5 8600G but do more content creation, this Ryzen 7 gives you the extra headroom I felt the Ryzen 5 from this generation was missing. Keep in mind, too, that this went toe-to-toe with the Ryzen 7 7800X3D in Cinebench and Blender, so there's some really decent performance to have here without spending extra money on a 3D V-Cache option.

Overall, you do get a solid Ryzen 7 processor from the 8000G family, although to sound like a broken record, the majority of gamers will get by just fine without spending the extra money on it. If you don’t tend to play many city builders or RTS games, save your money and opt for the Ryzen 5. The 8700G feels more like a slightly souped-up version of that processor with more of a focus on single-core performance and integrated graphics. I’ll let you be the judge of which one would suit you better, although with either you’ll be saving money versus Intel.

How I tested the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G

After installing the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G inside our AMD testing PC, I put it through our usual gauntlet of demanding CPU benchmarks. This includes industry-standard software like Cinebench and Blender, as well as city building and RTS games that processors need to simulate a lot of moving parts.

I used HWinfo to keep a close eye on voltages and temperatures and tracked average frame rates and percentages of use through Windows Game Bar and MSI afterburner. I compared my experience closely to my tests of the Ryzen 5 8600G since the two are part of the same family and were reviewed using the exact same testing process.

The rest of the components used in this test were as follows:

• CPU Cooler: Asus ROG Strix LC III 360 ARGB
• CPU thermal paste applied: Prolima Tech PK3 Nano Aluminum High-Grade Thermal Compound
• Chassis: Fractal Meshify 2 RGB
• Number of fans: 3 intakes, 4 extractors, 1 radiator
• GPU: AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE
• RAM: XPG Lancer Blade DDR5 RGB
• Motherboard: ASUS ROG Crosshair X670E Hero
• PSU: Corsair RMx Shift Series RM850x ARX PS

For more on how we test, check out the full GamesRadar+ Hardware Policy.

There's more where that came from. Check out the best computer speakers, the best graphics cards, and the best Alienware gaming PC.

AMD just made its Radeon RX 9070 launch plans official, as CEO Lisa Su confirmed the next-gen graphics cards will go on sale in March. That's sure to please PC players waiting to hear more about the GPU, and if the red team plays its hand right, I think it could end up putting a lot of pressure on the RTX 5070.

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 series was originally supposed to feature at the company's CES 2025 event, serving as its next best graphics card contender. In the end it was a no-show, but Su says the GPU will arrive in March to bring "high-quality 4K gaming to mainstream players." (via Videocardz) The card will apparently also target the "highest volume portion of the enthusiast gaming market," which is a fancy way of saying it'll be the GPU that'll appeal to most players.

Su's Radeon RX 9070 series confirmation might sound like a boilerplate response, but it does paint a picture of AMD's GPU plans. The fact there's so much emphasis on the mainstream market in the statement sounds like a dig at Nvidia since the cheapest green team model right now is the $1,000 GeForce RTX 5080. But the part I'd focus on is the 4K comments, as that leads me to believe we'll have a a great value trouble maker on our hands.

Should you wait for the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT?

If you've got less than $600 to spend on a next-gen GPU this spring, you'll likely be choosing between the AMD Radeon RX 9070 and finding out where to buy the RTX 5070. Nvidia has already boasted that its midrange model will pull off GeForce RTX 4090 levels of performance using new DLSS 4 tricks, so the red team's contender is in for a rough fight.

That said, AMD has a bit of a opportunity here. While it's too late to change Radeon RX 9070 series specs, it can ensure it launches with an ultra aggressive MSRP. I'd previously heard rumblings that the non-XT and XT cards could end up costing an upsetting $749 and $749 respectively, but the company's marketing boss Frank Azos thankfully stepped in to say that was never the plan.

Ideally, the RTX 9070 will end up matching the RTX 5070's $549 MSRP while providing better native performance. Naturally, RDNA 4 GPUs will also come armed with FidelityFX Super Resolution 4 (FSR 4) to boost fps further using upscaling and frame generation. However, since some players are starting to get disgruntled about artificial performance enhancements, pulling off higher frame rates without assistance could help AMD dominate the midrange scene.

Let's be real, most of you out there will be looking to spend under $600 on a graphics card. Yes, those of you who buy an RTX 5090 will end up with visuals that'll probably put the PS6 to shame, but $2,000 is a price reserved for ultra enthusiasts and players with an unusually high disposable cash flow. By catering to ever day gaming PC builds first this generation, AMD could end up cooking something that's affordable and piles the heat on other mid-range cards.

I do think the RTX 5070 is going to hit the right mid-range notes, and that could be a huge issue for the RX 9070. I'll be looking to benchmark both in the month ahead to see which mid-ranger offers up the best value 4K experience, especially with AI upscaling switched off. I'm certainly not in the camp that thinks tools like DLSS 4 and FSR are cheating.

But, if AMD's card can natively outpace the 5070 in demanding games like Cyberpunk 2077 with 4K Ultra settings enabled, that could help it become the people's GPU. After all, hitting those sorts of specs used be reserved for pricey models, and not having to rely on games being compatible with AI features to hit higher frame rates makes playing at UHD resolutions more approachable.

Looking for more components? Swing by the best gaming CPU and best RAM for gaming for rig upgrades. Alternatively, here's where to buy the RTX 5080 if you're looking for a premium GPU

I'm not surprised, but the RTX 5090 pretty much has everyone's attention right now. But, I know a few casual PC players who're wondering where the $300 graphics cards are, so I've had a peek to see what's out there. I'm actually glad I did, as I just came across a 16GB AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT for far less than you'd expect.

Right now at Amazon, Gigabyte's Radeon RX 7600 XT OC is down to $260 from $329.99. I'm really not used to seeing many graphics cards break past the $300, but this discount sends AMD's budget conscious GPU to an all new low price. It's not like we're talking about an old card or one with bare minimum specs either, as I have no doubt this RDNA 3 model will pull off nifty frame rates at 1080p and even 1440p.

I've had a dig around the web for similar RX 7600 XT deals, but rival retailers aren't really keeping up. In fact, Newegg has the non-XT version with just 8GB VRAM for $264, and every other card with the same specs seems to be sticking with MSRP for now. I suspect it could be a while before we see any next-gen GPUs hit, so if I were you, I'd jump on this offer before last-gen stock starts to properly dry up.

Should you buy the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT?

At the right price, the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT feels like a sweet spot for cheap gaming PC builds. I know more than a few Steam players who simply need a GPU that won't have a breakdown when running anything from the past couple of years, and the Navi 33 model will happily do that.

In many ways, the XT edition is the entry level GPU that we should have got off the bat. I'm not saying the original AMD Radeon RX 7600 is a complete write-off, but being able to pick up a 16GB graphics card for under $300 feels like a much better deal. Both use the exact same GPU, meaning you'll end up with roughly the same frame rates, but the extra VRAM will safeguard the card against mean system requirements in the future.

So what exactly can the RX 7600 XT pull off in terms of frame rates? Well, hitting well over 60fps at 1080p is a given, and you'll find that you end up with averages over 100fps in games like Hitman 3 and even Sony's Returnal PC port. The card's 1440p abilities are pretty strong too, but you might want to tweak settings a little to boost fps to a more comfortable level.

It's worth noting that just like Nvidia's latest GPUs, the RX 7600 XT comes armed with upscaling abilities. Specifically, AMD FSR 3 is packing a feature dubbed "Fluid Motion Frames" that can provide frame generation tricks across a variety of games. I'd only use it to get yourself over the 60fps line rather than revive outings at super low frame rates since latency will be a huge issue. But, from what I've experienced, the tech can boost fps pretty nicely at a driver level, meaning it'll technically work with your whole Steam library.

Cheaper GPUs are slightly scarce right now, especially if you're looking for newish models. On the Nvidia side of things, the only card I could find that beats this RX 7600 XT deal is the RTX 3060, as you can grab one for $200 right now at Amazon. That really isn't too shabby at all seeing as it's a 12GB model with access to AI upscaling via DLSS, but the Ampere GPU inside is now two generations old. I'd keep that offer in your back pocket if you're on a really tight budget, but for $60 more, it's well worth picking up the newer AMD 16GB option.

Of course, if money isn't remotely an issue, checking out where to buy the RTX 5090 probably makes more sense. You should be able to buy the RTX 5070 soon too, and if your budget can stretch to $549, I'd recommend postponing any rig upgrades.

Looking for more components? Swing by the best gaming CPU and the best RAM for gaming for ways to revamp your rig. Alternatively, check out the best gaming handheld and escape the house with your Steam library.

AMD has finally unveiled its Ryzen Z2 series of chipsets, and the red team's APUs will power new gaming handhelds starting Q1 2025. The red team plans to release three different options that will cater to portable PC players, with models including the new Lenovo Legion Go range, future Asus ROG Ally devices, and even (maybe) the next Steam Deck. I say maybe, as while the red team's own press release implies Valve's device is on board, it'll probably be a custom variant.

Outside of its CES 2025 keynote, AMD revealed three chips - the Ryzen Z2 Extreme, Ryzen Z2, and Ryzen Z2 Go. The first two are set to feature 8 cores and 16 threads, but the Z2E will provide the best gaming handhelds this year with 16 graphics cores. The non-extreme version sticks with the same CU count as the Ryzen Z1, whereas the 'Go' scales things back to 4 cores and 16 threads.

As for power, the Z2E features a 15-35W TDP, while the Z2 sticks with 15-30W. Anyone who owns something like a Steam Deck OLED or the OG Asus ROG Ally will already be aware of the blight of current handheld battery life, and while specs are similar to current generation chips, the improved efficiencies tied to RDNA 3.5 should help extend playtime on new portables.

The next generation of handhelds starts now

Technically, Ryzen 8000 APUs have been powering boutique handhelds like the Ayaneo Flip DS for a few months now, but the Z2 Extreme and its kin should help usher in a new generation. Rumors have been circulating for months that the new chips will power new Lenovo Legion Go devices, and AMD says the chip's partners include Asus and Valve.

As I've already mentioned, the Steam Deck 2 will likely use something custom based on the same RDNA 3.5 architecture rather than a standard Z2 Extreme. But that aside, all signs point towards the chipset powering most upcoming handheld PCs. Naturally, rivals like the MSI Claw 8 AI+ will be stick with an Intel Core Ultra 7 processor instead, but I'm willing to bet most newcomers will be batting for team red.

The proof is always in the performance pudding, and I'll be putting the new Z2 chips through their paces using the latest handhelds throughout 2025. Even without frame rates and data to hand, I can already tell that this year is going to be a big one for portable players, especially since the Nintendo Switch 2 will likely show up with a new Nvidia chipset and enhanced abilities.

While I'm not expecting Ninty's console to pose a threat to new handheld PCs in terms of raw power, I am curious to see how the green team responds to AMD's dominance within the space given that it has a stronghold on the graphics card market.

Of course, if you'd rather sit at a desk than play your Steam games outside, AMD has shiny new Ryzen 9 X3D CPUs on the way too.

Already got Valve's handheld? Swing by the best Steam Deck accessories and best Steam Deck dock for excellent add-ons. Alternatively, take a peek at the best retro consoles for ways to play classic capers.

The main draw of CES 2025 for most PC gamers is new graphics cards, but CPU enthusiasts have something to be excited for too. Not one, but two new Ryzen 9 9000 desktop processors have just been unveiled, and both are stacked with AMD's 2nd Gen 3D V-Cache technology.

The AMD Ryzen 9-9950X3D is the latest flagship processor that's stealing the title of "the world's best CPU for gaming and content creation". It will feature 16 Zen 5 CPU Cores, supported by a generous 32 threads, giving it a maximum boost frequency of 5.7GHz. That lifts it over AMD's previous X3D offering from this generation, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, which has a max boost clock of 5.2GHz.

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D sports a total cache of 144MB, which AMD has said in its marketing material gives it an 8% increase in performance over the previous generation Ryzen 9 7950X3D chip when gaming at 1080p. Of course, this 3D V-cache is also bred for content creators, and compared against the same last-gen chip, AMD has found a 13% increase across 20 applications including Photoshop, Blender, and Cinebench.

We're yet to hear an official launch date and price for the new Ryzen 9, but AMD says it will be on the shelves in Q1 of 2025, which could mean it arrives any time in the next three months or so.

If you don't quite have the budget for the best gaming PC specs available, this new powerhouse processor does have a presumably cheaper alternative. The Ryzen 9 9900X3D has only slightly lessened specs, but still offers you flagship gaming and content power.

It features 12 cores and 24 threads, with a max boost clock of 5.5GHz, and a total cache of 140MB. This may be one for the more power-conscious, since the flagship 9950X3D has a TDP of 170W, whereas the 9900X3D only draws 120W.

In other exciting news, AMD also announced that it's bringing its highly popular X3D tech to its "H" processors, giving owners of the best gaming laptops the chance to enjoy this breakthrough processing feature.

Of course, GPU news is the talk of the town right now, and AMD has also lifted the admittedly leaking lid of its RDNA 4 selection. The new Radeon RX 9070 has been confirmed, so read up on that if you're interested in the latest gaming PC specs. You'll also want to check out the upcoming Ryzen Z2 Extreme chip if you're excited about next-gen handhelds.

For more component chat, check out the best graphics cards, the best computer speakers, and the best RAM for gaming.

AMD is seemingly cooking up a new collection of APUs for the best gaming handhelds. That should come as zero surprise considering the growing popularity of portable PCs like the Steam Deck, but I'm not convinced the chipmaker has made up its mind on specs yet. The reason? Leaks revealing core counts for the Ryzen Z2 Extreme have already been amended just hours after their initial arrival.

Yesterday, AMD Ryzen Z2 Extreme specs leaked courtesy of Bilibili user Golden Pig, claiming that the RDNA 3.5 chip would arm future handheld contenders with 12 Compute Units (via Videocardz). The leaker also revealed that there was originally a 16 CU version in the worked dubbed the Ryzen Z2E X, but it was supposedly cancelled.

I say supposedly, as less than 24 hours later, the leaker chimed back in to say that the vanilla Z2E will wield 16 CUs. The insider rounds off the latest update with "AMD are confusing me," which is something I can completely relate to when it comes to early CPU and GPU specs. It's not uncommon for both AMD and Nvidia to change its mind right up until the last minute, and it feels like that's what's going on here.

What is the AMD Ryzen Z2 Extreme?

If you're unfamiliar with the world of mobile chipsets, you might be wondering what the AMD Ryzen Z2 Extreme is or why the handheld nerd within you should care. Effectively, it's poised to be a successor to the chip within handhelds like the Asus ROG Ally and Lenovo Legion Go, offering up improved performance via a new RDNA 3.5 architecture. Simply put, it'll boost fps further than the current Ryzen Z1 Extreme thanks to a higher core count and enhanced specs.

In addition to the "Extreme" version, AMD is apparently set to release two additional chips, namely the Z2 and Z2G. Both should serve as lower spec options that aren't too dissimilar to the current gen Z1E, equipped with 8 Compute Units. In turn, manufacturers will theoretically be able to produce cheaper handheld models that can keep up with the top portable PCs available right now.

It's worth noting that while Valve may end up using a chip similar to either of the above for a hypothetical Steam Deck 2, you'll more likely find it in successive Windows handhelds. Options like the Steam Deck OLED do use Ryzen chips, but they've been armed with custom versions up until now. What I'm getting at is you shouldn't get excited about a new Deck coming as a result of this latest leak, and it's more likely a sign that Lenovo's Legion Go refresh is inbound.

Talk of specs aside, it's a pretty exciting time to be a handheld fan. While the current Ryzen Z1 chip pushed the boundaries of portable performance last year, newcomers like the Zotac Zone have only slightly nudged the bar with chips like the 7 8840U. If a new version of the APU arrives with double the Compute Units, we could be looking at a wave of devices that can comfortably run the latest PC games at over 60fps without much compromise. Plus, it's lower-spec siblings may guzzle less power, ultimately solving the big battery dilemma tied to handheld gaming in 2024.

Looking to grab some handheld discounts? Swing by Black Friday Steam Deck deals and Black Friday Nintendo Switch deals. Alternatively, check out Black Friday monitor deals if you need a new desktop screen.

It's no secret that I'm completely unimpressed with graphics card prices right now. Yes, inflation has eased since the turn of the decade, and you can grab some graphics cards at MSRP. But, considering we're on the brink of the next generation of GPUs, I don't think retailers are trying quite hard enough to shift stock. With Prime Day 2, or "Big Deal Days" as Amazon like to call it, on the horizon and Black Friday coming soon after, I thought it'd be a good time to explore how I'd go about hunting for discounts. 

Just to clarify, I do think Prime Day and Black Friday graphics card deals will pop up, and I'm holding out for offers on some of the best graphics cards dropping in price. My main beef is with the fact discounts are far slimmer than they used to be, and premium models like the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 are just outright allergic to price cuts. Simply put, savings still aren't worth boasting about to your friends and family, which feels silly considering the maturity of this generation during a sale period.

All that aside, there are ways to ensure you get a graphics card for a decent price during Prime Day. Some of my advice will be like teaching enthusiasts how to suck eggs, but I know there will be plenty of you who will benefit from a helping hand this time around. While every bone in my body also wants to say simply don't buy a GPU right now, there will be instances where players need to upgrade or replace an old part. So, here's some tips to make the process that bit easier.

Avoid paying above MSRP

Not to pay above a manufacturer's suggested retail price sounds like a no brainer, but the nature of the graphics card market makes it harder than you'd think. Technically, board partners like Asus, Acer, Gigabyte, PNY, and Zotac can set their own pricing outside of Nvidia or AMD's recommendations, resulting in custom cards that can be a chunk expensive.

In fairness, some of these GPUs come with more advanced coolers, factory overclocks, and additional perks, so inflated prices do some with some minor extras. My advice would be to stick with as close to the original reference specs of a card as possible, which in turn should mean paying at least below MSRP. If you don't need extra fans for your specific build, aren't fussed about overclocking, or couldn't care less about extra fancy RGB lighting, you've got nothing to lose going for a more basic model.

Check your specs

Matching specs is absolutely fundamental when hunting for graphics card deals. The last thing you'll want to do is shove an RTX 4090 in a system with minimal RAM, a pretty old low-spec CPU, and a power supply that isn't up to the task. Doing so will simply result in you spending more to get your system producing appropriate frame rates, so you'll want to narrow down GPUs based on what your system is actually suited to.

I tend to use terms like entry-level, mid-range, and high-end when describing rigs and graphics cards. It's not a perfect form of categorization, but it does help describe some of the GPU options out there in relation to system builds. For example, if you have an entry-level RTX 2060 build from a year years ago, your best best is to stick with the likes of the Nvidia Geforce RTX 4060 since it'll target a similar level of performance with generational improvements. 

You'll notice I used Nvidia's classing system there to match up GPUs, something I usually avoid since the green team doesn't stick to its own system half the time. Still, you're theoretically supposed to be able to upgrade using it with minimal other changes to you system, providing your parts have had a refresh at some point in the past decade.

Mind your monitor

As PC players, monitor resolution has a big part to play in our end experience. There are valid reasons for playing at either 1080p, 1440p, or 4K, and graphics cards are designed with each resolution in mind. I'm a big advocate for playing games at both your screen's native resolution and one your hardware can actually handle, and sticking with that decision making methods may ultimately save you money.

The core idea is this - if you're rocking a 1080p monitor with a standard refresh rate, you'll get more than enough performance out of a RTX 4060 or AMD Radeon RX 7600. Those of you playing at refresh rates over 120Hz, or indeed aiming for 1440p performance will want to look at mid-range models like the RTX 4070 or RX 7800 XT. Can't go without 4K? You'll be waiting to start with the RTX 4070 Ti and Radeon RX 7900 XT.

I'm going to immediately play devil's advocate with my own advice and say that entry-level and mid-tier GPUs can pull off 4K to an extent. I've personally achieved this by dialling back settings and making full use of AI upscaling. The idea behind sticking with specific cards for certain resolutions is that you'll be able to play new games at max settings with zero caveats, something that's extremely appealing when splashing out on a new component. As always, I'd advise checking out our graphics card reviews for a proper look at what each model can achieve.

Think outside the green and red box

If you head to most retailers and type in "graphics card", Nvidia and AMD options are going to dominate your screen. But, the GPU scene isn't actually a two horse race, as Intel has a range of models that can provide a decent value gaming experience. I'm not talking about anything high-end by any means, as even the flagship Intel Arc A770 is more of an RTX 3060 competitor. Still, The blue team's Alchemist cards are pretty capable and come in at a much lower price by default, and I'm expecting some great discounts over the sale season. 

For context, the Intel Arc A750 dropped to just $179 last year, which is a wild price for a new 8GB graphics card with modern 1080p abilities. The Sparkle version of the Arc A770 also ended up dipping to $269.99 from $319 last September, putting other entry-level GPUs to shame with 16GB VRAM.

Keep in mind that while these are what I'd describe as good deals, the cards aren't necessarily better than Nvidia and AMD's current gen equivalents. Intel hasn't really got the whole AI upscaling thing nailed down yet, meaning the likes of the RTX 4060 can run circles around the A770 using DLSS and Frame generation. In fairness, Radeon cards aren't quite at the same level yet either, but FSR 3 can still boost fps more than Intel's XeSS solution. 

Looking for more components? Check out the best CPU for gaming, best RAM, and best SSDs for a selection of excellent PC parts.

Graphics cards rarely dip to under $300 these days, but I just stumbled across an Intel Arc A770 deal that feels worthwhile. Rather than sticking with 8GB VRAM and a GPU that starts to sweat when handling more than 1080p, you can currently grab a 16GB model with a factory overclock for substantially less. Simply put, if you're currently eyeing up entry level Nvidia and AMD cards, you might want to consider this offer instead.

Over at Amazon right now, the Sparkle A770 Titan OC Edition, one of Intel's best graphics card, is down to $269.99 from $319.99. For context, that's the same price featured during last years Black Friday event, so I'm pleased to see the discount show up outside of a sale. Typically, you'll pay around the $300 mark for this same model, and the Acer Predator BiFrost version we reviewed is currently sitting at an icky $399.

The deal means that, for under $300, you're getting 16GB GDDR6 VRAM, 2300 MHz clock speeds, and 4,096 shading units. On paper, that's a chunk more than the RTX 4060 and RX 7600, so you're technically getting better specs for your money. It is worth noting that these raw figures don't exactly translate to better performance in every scenario, as having tested all three of these cards, the A770 doesn't always come up trumps. Still, I think the A770 is well worth its current offer price based on the frame rates it can hit at 1440p and 4K.

Should you buy the Intel Arc A770?

Compared to other graphics cards out there right now, the Intel Arc A770 feels a little bit last gen. That's largely thanks to the fact it's a flagship graphics card that targets 1440p gameplay and uses slower GDDR6 VRAM than more expensive Nvidia and AMD rivals. Yet, despite this, I think the blue team has cleverly cornered a part of the market currently being neglected by those frontrunners, and its Alchemist GPU strikes a price vs performance balance that most players will dig. 

In testing, our very own Duncan Robertson found that the Intel Arc A770 was more than capable of hitting 88fps in games like Hitman 3 at 1440p, and it can even reach around 70fps in HUNT: Showdown at 4K. The card does suffer more in challenges like Cyberpunk 2077 with QHD resolutions enabled, but we're talking 55fps versus, which beats the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060's 46fps average. 

Of course, the above is based on native performance, as switching on DLSS using the 4060 results in a phenomenal jump to around 94fps. You will be able to boost performance using Intel XeSS, but the company's upscaler admittedly falls short compared to the green team's AI tricks. Where the A770 will benefit is when trying to handle higher resolution textures in tricky to run games, as its 16GB VRAM futureproofs it better than Nvidia's 8GB offering. 

In short, the Arc A770 can't quite keep up with the RTX 4060 when DLSS is involved, but considering Nvidia's card will set you back over $300, it's hard to argue with the value provided by Intel's GPU. If you're really trying to keep upgrading costs to a minimum, or you're building a new system on the cheap, the blue team's Alchemist card is a solid option. So long as you're happy with not getting to mess around with more advanced AI upscaling and new perks like Frame Generation, you'll end up with a card that should age a bit better than its rivals thanks to its 16GB memory.

Looking for more parts? Check out the best gaming CPU and best RAM for gaming. Alternatively, take a peek at the best SSD for gaming if you need a storage boost.

Intel has had a rough summer, and now that the brand’s Intel Gamer Days offers have started arriving, you may be asking if it's safe to buy its 13th and 14th Generation CPUs. In the past few months, reports of instability issues began to mount as more gamers and PC builders noticed their machines freezing, shutting down unexpectedly, and generally having bizarre performance issues. 

This impacted some of the best CPUs for gaming, including Intel’s flagship 14th Gen ones, and mainly the higher-end 13th Gen chips. Luckily, warranties have now been amended so that any consumer impacted by the faults can claim a new processor that won’t suffer the same issues. Motherboard manufacturers have rolled out fixes in the form of BIOS updates, which will ensure the problems don’t spread to chips that haven’t been affected thus far. 

But even so, this doesn’t fill consumers with a huge vote of confidence - especially with AMD’s alternatives usually costing less. With that in mind, we’re asking if it’s safe to buy these otherwise excellent gaming processors again. To understand fully, I think it’s important to give you a full rundown of the problems themselves. 

Instabilities, explained 

So what was causing these strange instability issues in the first place? Well, inside the best gaming PCs, you have a processor that essentially acts as your computer’s brain. Each core of that brain takes a certain amount of volts to operate, and they request that specific voltage through a microcode algorithm it uses to communicate with the motherboard. When the CPU is under load, these voltages can go up, and usually, when they’re not working so hard, they’re less demanding. This requested level is known as the operating voltage, and it’s something we monitor whenever we test the latest CPUs. 

It turns out that Intel’s Raptor Lake processors had a fault in their microcode algorithm that saw them request elevated operating voltages from the motherboard. That can cause instability because too high a voltage can wear chips like these out with time. The brand said this in its community forum:

“Our analysis of returned processors confirms that the elevated operating voltage is stemming from a microcode algorithm resulting in incorrect voltage requests to the processor.”

Hopefully, with my explanation above, that very tech-bro statement can actually make sense to you.

In the same way that overclocking can be dangerous for your PC parts if done haphazardly, CPUs demanding too much voltage for themselves can do the same. Essentially, Intel’s CPUs were overvolting themselves, and that can cause the slew of random issues gamers started reporting earlier in the year. The annoying part is that there’s no way to amend things for processors that are already impacted, so you can understand why people were frustrated.

The fixes

Unfortunately, for its products that were already proving volatile, Intel couldn’t fix the issues. If your CPU has started acting up, which you’ll be able to monitor through your preferred software, you’ll need to go with one of the following fixes.

Intel has now amended the microcode algorithm on its 13th and 14th generation products going forward, so that new ones sold from this point onward won’t suffer the same issues. Fortunately, it’s also extended the warranty period for boxed CPUs. If you bought your processor separately, reaching out to Intel Customer Support is your best bet to claim a new model. 

If you bought a gaming rig with the CPU already installed, you should reach out to your system’s manufacturer, who should be able to help due to this warranty as well. For the full warranty details, check out Intel’s announcement. 

Intel has worked with motherboard manufacturers too, and has provided a microcode patch that will block elevated voltage requests from new processors. You should check your motherboard’s firmware and support page to see if a BIOS update has been rolled out that you can benefit from.

So, what now?

So, with that all laid out, should you buy Intel’s 13th or 14th gen chips? For now, we’d cautiously say yes. We’ve deliberately waited for the dust to settle on the BIOS update fixes and the warranty claims before writing this because we wanted to see how the solutions would be received. 

In my opinion, it seems like these processors are safe to buy again, because even if you manage to get one that acts up, the extended warranty will cover you, and in all likelihood, your motherboard’s latest BIOS will prevent the issue if you haven’t run into it yet.

We would, however, take this opportunity to recommend getting yourself a decent cooler, and looking into some decent CPU monitoring software. Even the Intel Core i5-13600K I use in my personal machine can run a little hot with just an air cooler, and Intel’s latest processors have a reputation for running hot. Keeping a CPU cool, whether it’s for gaming or content creation, is one of the best ways to care for it over time. Granted, I chose that riskier air-cooling route because it’s in an ITX case with limited room, but our 13900K review shows that Raptor Lake products used in combination with the right cooler can be manageable. 

If you do choose to go for a new Intel chip, the best course of action for anyone who’s paranoid about these issues persisting is to monitor your voltages closely. Undervolting might help you, but keeping an eye on things with programs like HWiNFO, NZXT CAM, MSI Afterburner, or your motherboard’s own software, can give you a solid picture of your chip’s health.

For more on PC parts, check out the best graphics cards, the best RAM for gaming, and the best PC cases. 

I’m not really in the habit of telling people not to buy graphics cards, as I firmly believe there’s a GPU for everyone out there. But, with new-gen GPUs poised to be released by 2025, and prices on current-gen models refusing to budge to a price I’m satisfied with, recommending a specific card right now is a struggle. 

It feels like the best graphics card options have been allergic to discounts for a while. Perhaps that’s a symptom of the long stint of inflated prices we had to deal with a few years ago, which made grabbing a GPU at MSRP near impossible. We’re absolutely in a better place since that fiasco, especially with the crypto mining craze done and dusted, but I can’t help but feel card makers could do more when it comes to deals. 

Just to clarify, I’m not saying graphics card deals are non-existent, and I’ve managed to spot a few decent discounts this year alone. However, I still don’t feel like enough price cuts are happening as we approach the end of the current generation. Traditionally, GPUs tend to get a bit more affordable when newbies are on the cards, but despite constant rumors relating to the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 and its kin, I’ve yet to see any savings that feel appropriate. 

MSRP Problems

Out of all the current-gen graphics cards out there, the RTX 4090 exemplifies the whole issues with GPU deals right now. If you head to Amazon, you’ll see plenty of price cuts on the enthusiast-grade card, but not a single offer brings it down below Nvidia’s MSRP. The retailer admittedly only has “custom” models by vendors that boast extra features for an elevated price tag, but a slight factor overclock didn’t use to mean a price tag a few hundred dollars higher. 

For context, the cheapest RTX 4090 I can see right now at Amazon is $1,701.80 for a PNY Verto model. It’s technically down from $1,849.99, but considering the card’s MSRP is $1,599, it’s hardly what I’d call a real saving. 

On the AMD side of things, discounts seem to be a little more common, and the red team’s flagship RX 7900 XTX did manage to drop to a remarkable $799 just last month. That’s absolutely the sort of deal I want to see on these top-tier GPUs at this stage, and I genuinely don’t feel like it’s a big ask two years into a generation. Yet, plenty of vendors are still asking for over $1,000 for this same GPU, which makes it feel like only some AIB partners like XFX care about facilitating offers. 

Yes, I hear you – deals on premium GPUs don’t matter if you’ve got a smaller budget. For what it’s worth, you are more likely to find discounts on entry-level and mid-range graphics cards than anything near the top end. Are they good deals? Well, occasionally, but we’re still seeing prices hovering around MSRP in the guise of some sort of price cut. 

Let’s use the GeForce RTX 4060 as an example, as the GPU is one of the more affordable current-gen models at $299. At least, it would be that price if any manufacturers had standard variants, but we’re instead seeing versions with triple cooling fans for $304.99 (down from $339). I’ve spent enough time with a dual fan 4060 to know that most players aren’t going to need the extra cooling, so I’m not sure why cardmakers aren’t at least making basic models available at MSRP. It honestly wouldn’t take much to impress me. Knock $20 off the RTX 4060’s MSRP and I’ll be all over it. 

How long should you wait? 

I don’t want to pretend to be some sort of GPU deal Nostradamus, nor do I think the graphics card market is that predictable in 2024. That said, there are a few basics I’d stick to when planning to pick up a new card. The obvious one is to wait for sales like Prime Day and Black Friday, as brands normally wait till these events to reveal substantial discounts. Do random savings happen throughout the year? Absolutely, but if that RX 7900 XTX deal mentioned above is anything to go by, stock is usually slim and returns to full price fairly quickly. 

The second, which might also be obvious, is to wait until next-gen GPUs rear their head. I’m laughing at that piece of advice, as it didn’t really work out with the RTX 30-series since all the prices remained just as high, but I believe it’s a slightly different situation this time. Before RTX 4000 models were released, prices were all well beyond MSRP, and it took new versions to arrive to get things even remotely near their original asking price. Simply put, current cards have much less of a fall to make, meaning companies are theoretically losing less by cutting prices. 

Of course, all of this depends on the MSRP of new cards. If the RTX 5090 rolls up with a much higher price tag than its 4090 predecessor, manufacturers may be less compelled to cut prices. After all, the Lovelace card will look like a bargain without even trying if the new flagship costs a chunk more, which means nothing will really happen to prices come the new generation.

The above all sounds pretty morbid from a GPU deal standpoint, and I’m aware that things can change quickly. From where I’m standing, the whole thing feels like a “wait and see” scenario, especially when it comes to flagship 4K GPUs. I’ll naturally be checking regularly for any real discounts and sharing them with you, but if you’ve got a card that can run the latest games right now without too many caveats, I’d put the brakes on any potential upgrades.

On the flipside, if you’re building a gaming PC right now and want to ride out 2024 with a decent build, I’d personally stick with the entry-level to mid-range cards for now. You can plan the rest of your rig to suit higher specs with DDR5 RAM and a powerful CPU, but using something like an RTX 4070 will keep you from spending over $1,000 and mean you can upgrade to something more premium when prices become acceptable.

If you go with that latter approach and end up with a RTX 4090 rig for substantially less come 2025, come back and let me know!

 Need more parts? Check out the best gaming CPU and best gaming RAM for powerhouse components. Alternatively, swing by the Alienware gaming PC for something that's hot to go. 

It’s August of 2024 and after months of hunting down the parts for GamesRadar+’s new AMD testing PC, I finally sit down to review the AMD Ryzen 5 8600G. Admittedly, it’s not a great time to be a modern gaming CPU. The headlines in the last four weeks have been bleak; Intel’s 13th and 14th Generation chips have been so suddenly volatile that they’ve cast the brand in an embarrassing light, and AMD’s Ryzen 9000 series has seen delays and some awkward-looking leaks, so as I begin my benchmarking, I’m a little scared to look at the screen.

The best CPUs for gaming are a pretty demanding upgrade at the moment because, for anyone who hasn’t made the jump to a DDR5-compatible system, it can mean a whole new motherboard and memory too. For that reason, you want peace of mind that whichever one you commit to will be worth the money and will be able to harness the power of other new-gen components.

Like I’ll argue in a lot of my CPU coverage, a lot of people might be surprised to learn that the latest generations of processors from Intel and AMD are so powerful that a flagship or even a Ryzen 7/i7 really isn’t necessary for the majority of us. I’ve known that for a while, and yet AMD’s Ryzen 5, which released at the start of 2024, still managed to surprise me. At launch, it had an MSRP of $229 / £218, but it’s easily found for $180 / £180 at the time of writing. For that reason, it may actually be the best value 4K processor out there.

Specs and Features 

If you compare AMD’s latest CPUs with the raw specs of Intel’s equivalents, you might be a bit puzzled at how the two compete. On paper, Intel gives people way more horsepower to gallop with. The Intel Core i5-13600K, which currently holds our top spot on the desktop CPU ladder, has a surprising 14 cores and 20 threads compared to the respective 6 and 12 offered up here. 

In truth, that made me skeptical about how this processor would keep up with demands inside one of the best gaming PCs, but it shouldn’t have. The truth is, as impressive as Intel’s copious amounts of cores and threads are, you very rarely put them all to use. I struggle to give that processor demanding tasks that utilize more than 20% of its capabilities, and that’s while streaming, gaming in 4K, having other apps open, and generally trying my best to push it off balance.

AMD’s Zen 4 architecture is so fast that it can produce some amazing results, even without those extra cores and threads. That can be seen by the Ryzen 5 8600G’s 4.3GHz base clock speed, which trounces the 13th Gen i5’s 3.5GHz.

AMD’s 16MB L3 cache is admittedly smaller than Intel’s 24MB alternative, but Team Red’s version of this quick-access library never seemed to let me down when gaming, and I have to admit that surprised me.

I think the most notable difference in real terms when it comes to these architectural schools of thought is that AMD’s chip as a whole runs so much cooler, and more efficiently than Intel’s. Modern Intel chips are known to run hot, even if our 13th Gen Intel Core i9 review found that a strong enough AIO cooler can keep anything cool. For this review, I was testing with a solid AIO from Asus, but I was still astounded at how calm the processor stayed under pressure. If I can manage to keep a 13th Gen i5 cooled with just air inside my small form factor PC, this thing would be such a viable option for that sort of build.

Like Intel’s XMP technology, this processor comes armed with AMD EXPO, which allows your system to fully make the most of the best RAM for gaming. Not only that, but EXPO feels particularly beefy - offering what seems like a more advanced suite of finetuning and overclocking options for your CPU as well as your memory.

Personally, I have very little interest in AI-enhanced PC parts, but this is one of the first desktop processors on the shelves with an integrated NPU inside it. In theory, this is supposed to speed up AI and machine learning applications, allowing your CPU and GPU to carry on concentrating on other demanding tasks. This is great, but I don’t tend to use a lot of these applications and am broadly wary of giant corporations making AI their biggest priority all at once. It feels like an unregulated, yet extremely fast-growing technology, and we’re still trying to play catchup with how that equation worked out on social media platforms.

My hesitancy aside, I doubt an NPU is something an everyday gamer will benefit from, but at least AMD has a slightly cheaper option of this processor without the NPU for those like me, who have no real interest.

Performance

When I first started testing this chip, I intended to test it at 1080p, since that’s how I benchmarked the 13600K. The two processors are more or less direct competitors, after all, and even if I do use my 13600K for 4K gaming, the majority of people probably don’t expect that of the 8600G. Regardless, I decided to push the envelope out a little more. What if an under-$200 desktop processor could be the 4K performer that no one expected?

Of course, this meant running it through our usual tests, albeit at the highest resolution with maxed-out settings. Before I got stuck into gaming, I hit up Cinebench and Blender, my two favorite industry-standard hamster wheels for CPUs. 

The results were as I expected. Because of the fewer cores and threads, and the lack of performance cores on the most recent Intel processors, benchmarking scores weren’t quite as solid as the 13600K. Cinebench’s multicore score came in at a high of 14,037pts, which isn’t exactly competitive with the 13600K’s mean score of 20,850 across three tests. The single core performance was a more entertaining contest though, with Intel’s i5 achieving 1930pts, and the 8600G scoring 1792pts. 

Blender was a similar story, with fewer samples per minute turned in, but much more manageable temperatures. It’s really up to you which of these will suit you more. Are you looking for something that will run cooler with less babysitting, or do you want the best performance possible for things like content creation? There are wins to be had in both camps, depending on your rig and demands.

CPU-intensive games need to simulate loads of parameters all at once. RTS games and city-builders are a good example, so that’s what I stuck to here. As well as our Total War Warhammer 3 benchmarks and our favorite demanding Cities: Skylines scenarios, I wanted to get a broader picture of this CPU’s gaming potential in 4K. For that reason, I messed around with Homeworld 3’s benchmarking tool, and speedran the opening scenario in Planet Zoo I originally beat just a few weeks ago. For a processor that’s already being replaced by a 9000 Series rival and only seems to be getting cheaper, I was very pleased with the results. 

If you do decide to open up our 13600K review and compare things side by side, just remember that we performed tests for Intel’s champion with an Intel Arc A770 as its GPU, running the games at 1080p. These tests were done with an AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE running at 4K, so this CPU has a bit of a leg-up in its comparison. 

As you can see, temperatures and voltages were extremely manageable, which says a lot about the efficiency of AMD’s Zen 4 architecture, but also the cooling prowess of Asus’s ROG Strix LC III 360 ARGB cooler. Frame rates, even with a hefty 16GB GPU, did come in under the coveted 60fps most gamers will be looking for. In fairness, these are tests done to simulate harder workloads, and I had the settings cranked up to full. I have no doubt that 4K60 gameplay would be more than possible with the right settings configured - even if you were using a slightly less powerful graphics card.

Peak percentage numbers are notably higher across the board in these results than Intel’s option. That said, the Core voltages here are almost equal. I didn’t formally note down the wattages for each test in this review, but whenever I checked them, AMD’s were lower.

Next up were the tests in Cities: Skylines, one of the most popular city-builders out there. While there’s no dedicated benchmarking tool in this game, I like to load up three highly demanding fan-made scenarios and play around while jotting down some stats. The following was what I found from the 8600G:

These results were a lot more playable, even with settings dialed all the way up. Especially impressive here was the peak percentage of use, since these numbers were more or less on par with the 13600K. 

The last tests were Homeworld 3 and Planet Zoo. When I first launched the Homeworld benchmark, there were some obvious stutters - these quickly subsided though, and while 8% of the CPU was utilized, I did get a score of 45fps. This wasn’t enough for me though, so I played around with some settings, tried a few more times, and I was able to get that coveted 4K60 frame rate I was wanting. 

Planet Zoo was even more of a feather in this processor’s cap. As I zoomed over the skies of my first park, I saw that an encouraging peak percentage of 4% was on screen - but the average frame rate was just shy of the mark at 59fps with maxed settings. Again, not a total disaster, since dialing even one setting down would get it over the “playable” line.

 Should you buy the AMD Ryzen 5 8600G?

Deciding between this processor and the 13600K (our favorite CPU for gaming overall) is no easy task. In terms of raw performance, Intel’s chip is better, but for efficiency, cooling, and price, this is a tough contender to beat. In my opinion, it’ll really come down to you, and your personal preferences. I’d argue that content creators can benefit from the extra headroom Intel’s spec sheet gives you, but most gamers can absolutely get by with this chip in their machines. 

I was so pleasantly surprised by the 8600G’s ability to game in 4K - especially since it came so close to the 4K60 mark when settings were fully raised. I’d be willing to bet that most gamers looking to buy it wouldn’t necessarily be demanding that much from it, but the headroom to know it's possible makes it especially tempting. 

Finally, I can’t ignore that price, nor AMD’s long-term commitment to its CPU architecture. Its 2016 motherboard socket is still being supported with new releases, so if you do choose to join Team Red, you’ve potentially got years of upgrading left before getting a new motherboard. Plus, if you’re like me and have no interest in that AI-tilted NPU, you can get the 8500G for even cheaper.

Update: November 7, 2025Just to give this review some modern relevance, I'll say that if I were tasked with building a budget gaming PC today using modern components, this processor would be one I'd really look out for. For its sub-$200 price, it packs a lot of power, and I've noticed it gets loads of discounts. It might not be the most popular choice, but it's absolutely one of the dark horses of the current CPU market, especially against the Ryzen 9000 competitor,s which most folks are looking for. Those are chips I would recommend, but the performance increase over the 800G range isn't massive from our tests. If you want to save a bit of money, this is still a great processor to buy.

How I tested the AMD Ryzen 5 8600G 

I put the AMD Ryzen 5 8600G inside GamesRadar+’s latest testing PC to examine how it performed. I ran it through our usual ringer of tests and benchmarks, using HWiNFO to monitor its temperatures, voltages, percentages, and more. 

The rest of the rig we tested alongside this processor was made up of the following components: 

• CPU Cooler: Asus ROG Strix LC III 360 ARGB
• CPU thermal paste applied: Noctua NT-H1 Thermal Paste
• Chassis: Fractal Meshify 2 RGB
• Number of fans: 3 intakes, 4 extractors, 1 radiator
• GPU: AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE
• RAM: XPG Lancer Blade DDR5 RGB
• Motherboard: ASUS ROG Crosshair X670E Hero
• PSU: Corsair RMx Shift Series RM850x ARX PSU

For more on how we test gaming PCs and their components, check out the GamesRadar+ Hardware Policy.

You might want to check out our thoughts on the best graphics cards, the best PC cases, and the best SSDs for gaming. 

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX has always had price on its side, but I just stumbled across a ridiculous new record-low deal. You can now grab the red team’s flagship 4K graphics card for almost $100 less than Nvidia’s mid-range GPU, and I don’t think I could recommend any other high-end card right now. 

It just so happens that the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX is down to just $709 at Amazon – a saving of $290.99 compared to its $999.99 MSRP. I regularly check in on the flagship graphics card for offers and discounts, and this specific XFX Speedster MERC310 model has only dropped to $799 in the past. It’s remarkable to see an extra $100 off that discounted price outside of Black Friday or Prime Day. 

Just to hammer home how good this deal is, other RX 7900 XTX models at Amazon are all currently sitting around the $1,000 mark, which makes sense given it is AMD’s top offering. What’s baffling me more is that this GPU is cheaper than the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Ti. The lowest price I could find for the mid-range 1440p card is $730.03 for the MSI Gaming version, meaning you’d be paying more for something with only 12GB VRAM and fewer cores.  

Should you buy the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX? 

Before I get too excited, I want to clarify that there are strong reasons to invest in one of Nvidia’s best graphics card options over AMD’s contender. It’s no secret that the green team’s frontrunner, the monstrous GeForce RTX 4090, blows everything else out of the water, and underlings like the RTX 4080 Super and even the cheaper RTX 4070 Super pack a mighty punch laced with DLSS AI upscaling abilities.

That said, the performance difference between the RX 7900 XTX and RTX 4090 Super isn’t that big, so when you consider that the latter currently costs around $300 more, the conversation steers toward value. For just over $700, you’re getting a great 4K GPU that will happily serve up ray tracing in the latest games, boasts 24GB GDDR6X VRAM, and now has access to fps-boosting Fluid Motion Frames tech. 

Can you reach far loftier frame rate heights using the RTX 4080 Super? Absolutely, and if you’re fussy about fps, you might still want to invest in Nvidia’s GPU. For everyone else, I genuinely think the RX 7900 XTX will offer up more than serviceable native 4K performance, and paying a chunk less for it will sweeten the experience further. Put it this way, the RTX 5090 and other next-gen graphics card offerings will more than likely be a thing in 2025, so I’d personally rather avoid paying anywhere near $1,000 for a top-tier performer right now, as even the RTX 4090 will likely be kicked from its throne.  

Upgrading your rig? Check out the best gaming CPU and best gaming RAM for powerhouse components. Alternatively, swing by the Alienware gaming PC for something that's hot to go.

I recently switched to the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT after the better part of a year using a 16GB Intel Arc A770. I loved Intel’s first flagship GPU at release, but continual bugs with its driver updates and its weakness in some content creation tasks meant I was in dire need of an upgrade. 

 Naming conventions among the best graphics cards can be a bit confusing. Compared to last gen’s RX 6800 XT which is a much-loved mid-ranger, this feels more like an architectural refresh rather than a full generational step up. Arguably, the RX 7900 GRE is the true successor to the 6800 XT, but that’s not to say this card should be slept on.  

Compared to the competition, a price tag of $499 / £479 for a mid-range card with 16GB of VRAM is generous. The RTX 4070 range comes in well over that price point, no matter the variant you choose, and it’s worth noting that those only pack in 12GB of VRAM.

Design

For this review, I’m checking out Acer’s Predator BiFrost OC board, which, as you’ll see from the table below, touts a faster boost clock than AMD’s in-house version. As a result, it comes in above MSRP. You’ll likely find minor price discrepancies no matter what GPU you go for, but from a quick look, there are options available under that suggested price tag to offset the pricier variant I’m checking out. 

The 7800 XT sits bang smack in the middle of AMD’s RDNA 3 range, and with three siblings on either side of it, it might just be the value sweet spot to slot inside your best gaming PC. 

I was lucky enough to test out and review both the Radeon RX 7900 XTX and the RX 7900 XT, so I’m already well aware that AMD is packing a lot of underappreciated heat with RDNA3. I personally love that for your money on the red side of the GPU war, you tend to get more VRAM for your money than equivalent Nvidia products - even if that VRAM is sometimes a little slower. That dominant brand tends to be more stingy with memory and uses its DLSS upscaling and frame generation as its main selling point. While this certainly works for them, I’d always prefer to have more memory so I have more headroom for higher resolutions and for content creation tasks. 

In terms of the physical design of the Acer model I’m testing, you’ll notice a few Predator logos and three of the brand’s Frostblade 3.0 fans, but compared to my Acer Predator BiFrost Intel Arc A770, the design of this feels scaled back. There’s no RGB to be seen, but matte black surfaces make it look like something that would fit in with any of Christian Bale’s Batman utensils. In short, it looks badass, and its chunky build lets you know there’s serious power within.

Bulky as it may be, I had no issues at all slotting it into my ITX PC. It's 281.9mm long by 104mm wide and has a height of 60.9mm, so it won’t demand too much real estate. Two 8-pin connectors are all you’ll need to hook it up to your power supply, no need for a swanky new cable like some of the higher-end Nvidia 40 Series offerings.

Features

One of the big draws of upgrading to newer GPU architecture is, of course, the upscaling and frame generation tools you get access to. AMD has opened up FSR 3 to its older generations too, but the newer GPUs are the ones that will likely reap the most benefits from it because they’re set up architecturally to do so. Until more support for FSR 3 arrives, Adrenalin software that helps you manage graphics settings and driver updates has you covered.

I must say, even since reviewing the RX 7900 XTX and XT, I feel like Adrenalin as an app has really improved. All the parts are easily navigable, and make Intel’s Arc control look like a toddler's first attempt at drawing a house. Besides my preferences not saving across a firmware update, and the app upsetting a few of my keyboard shortcuts, it’s performed brilliantly, never slowing down performance. 

I especially like the ability to record gameplay without hindering performance. This is something Intel needs to improve on desperately, but as someone who livestreams and records gameplay for YouTube videos, it’s a vital feature for me. 

Fluid Motion Frames and FidelityFX Super Resolution are two of the most important features when gaming with one of the Radeon 7000 Series graphics cards. The former is a frame generation tool that gives you some seriously decent frame rate boosts. Nvidia’s upscaling is talked a lot about, but I don’t think AMD gets enough credit for its equivalent. FidelityFX Super Resolution is a clever piece of engineering that renders your game at the resolution below your display’s maximum, then upscales it to give you a performance boost. Both of these will turn on when you activate Hyper-RX mode in the Adrenalin app, but both can be tuned manually depending on your preferences.

A warning though, if you turn these on and Steam or the Windows game bar tells you you’re getting fewer frames per second than before, turn on AMD’s overlay. For some reason, other software can’t track the frames AMD is generating, but the true kick this technology gives your gaming setup is happening, which a trained eye will be able to spot.

Performance

I’m really happy with the Radeon RX 7800 XT because it’s great at doing exactly what I want a mid-range GPU to do. Even if it’s billed as a 1440p driver, I take it to 4K in every game I play, and the 60+ frame rates it pulls out make it an absolute console killer. In games like Hunt: Showdown I get an organic 90fps, but after dialing in FSR and FMF, I get 130fps without the GPU showing an ounce of sweat. 

In Alan Wake 2, which gave the Intel Arc A770 some serious grief, I was able to get over 100fps in 4K thanks to Hyper-RX presets, and combined with my Intel Core i5-13600K processor, Baldur’s Gate 3 runs in 4K at around 75-80fps depending on the scenario.

Streaming and video editing is a similar story. I’ve detected next to no performance dips when scrubbing through 4K video, and although the fans in my PC kick up a storm in those heavier Adobe Premiere Pro sessions, the GPU never seems to mind and keeps a solid ambient temperature in the 60s (centigrade).

This was something I found during industry-standard benchmarking too, as 3DMark’s Time Spy test peaked in the 70s, and Fire Strike’s average temperature was a toasty 71. Scores here weren’t quite as beefy as I’d hoped, but still trumped the Arc A770 I was using before.

But of course, to really test out a GPU you need to make it sweat, and there’s nothing better for that than running it around a lap of our benchmarking games. For these tests, we’re trying to work the board to its limits, so all of the settings are cranked up to full at the two highest resolutions. 

The number of triple-digit frame rates in those benchmarks is impressive and speaks to the value for money that can be had here. These are especially demanding games cranked up to eleven, and I found during some more general gameplay tests that fiddling around with settings menus creates positive results in each testing category. 

For comparison, the RTX 4070 Super achieved the same 104fps in Returnal at 1440p when we reviewed it, although we did test it in a different system. Even so, in 4K, the 7800 XT continued to give it a run for its money with a compared 60fps. In fact, there were even some instances where the 16GB of VRAM may have given it an edge at 4K. Again, keep in mind that we tested it in a different system so it isn't a totally fair test, but the 4070 Super scored 104fps in Hitman 3 to the 7800 XT’s 116fps. Totally concrete comparisons aside, these are interesting numbers when you think about the price of both GPUs.

Perhaps most impressively, FSR and FMF are working really well to deliver at least 20-30fps boosts in each game. To be totally fair to Team Green, the 4070 Super’s DLSS performance bumps were more helpful overall, and when ray tracing is involved, Nvidia still leads the charge. Still, for a mid-range GPU, performance across the board for a much more reasonable price tag makes this a dark horse worth considering.

Should you buy the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT? 

It’s pretty hard to argue with the 1440p and 4K performance this GPU gives you for what will likely be under $500 if you buy at the right time. I’d say for anyone looking to upgrade to a capable 16GB graphics card from either AMD or Nvidia’s most recent generations, the 7800 XT is one to seriously consider. For the money, you compete with an RTX 4070 Super that would demand a lot more from your pockets, and with Team Red’s homegrown version of DLSS, you won’t feel like you’re missing out on much. 

As much as I appreciate the RX 7800 XT, I can understand the frustration of anyone who already has the RX 6800 XT and was hoping for a bona fide step up. Graphics card manufacturers shouldn’t be playing sneaky and confusing games with naming conventions, but if it’s any consolation, the underrated mid-range performance of last-gen’s Dark Horse has survived here. If you aren’t attracted by the performance boosts you see here, you can always consider the RX 7900 GRE, which isn’t a lot more expensive. 

As a daily driver for me, I’m very happy with the 7800 XT at the moment. It provides 4K gaming, easy content creation, and great software I can use to finetune things how I like. Short of going for an Intel Arc A770 with 16GB, you’re going to struggle to find a current-gen, 4K-capable GPU that’s better value than this.

How we tested the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT

I put the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT in my own personal gaming PC for around two months before writing this review. In that time, I've used it to play hundreds of hours worth of games. Alan Wake 2, Hunt: Showdown, Planet Zoo, Dishonored 2, and Baldur's Gate 3 are just a few of the games I've played with it in my own time before formally testing it. I compared my experience closely to my time with the Intel Arc A770, a competitor GPU with 16GB of VRAM for a budget price. 

For formal testing, I put the graphics card through our wringer of benchmarking games and software, noting frame rates and comparing them across our previous reviews. 

For more on the ways we test out the latest graphics cards and computer parts, check out our hardware policy.

For more PC part buying advice, check out the best CPUs for gaming, the best RAM for gaming, and the best PC cases.

We're about a month out from when Amazon's big Prime Day sale typically falls. With the launch of AMD's next wave of processors slated for an undisclosed date in July, I'm getting pretty excited about the CPU deals we could see this Summer. I've been looking forward to good CPU discounts since AMD made its 9000 Series announcement, so much so, that I even made a note to remind myself to start checking the prices of AMD's 8000G CPUs from the 17th of June onwards.  

We'll start at the bottom and work our way up. The Ryzen 5 8500G has slipped from $179 down to $159 at Amazon, offering a supremely affordable computer brain for budget builders who don't want to be locked to a DDR4 system. Next, the Ryzen 5 8600G has been humbled, now sitting at a beautifully affordable $199 down from $229. Rounding things off is the powerful Ryzen 7 8700G, which is currently $299 at Amazon, down from $329.

Now, I know, it's not hard to predict that when new products are coming out, the existing ones will start to go down in price, but when it comes to the best CPUs for gaming at the moment, there are variants upon variants that are worth buying. AMD and Intel are essentially competing with themselves as people debate whether to upgrade to DDR5, and which of the current-gen CPU ranges to go for when they do. You'd think discounting a whole generation of 8000G processors would be reserved for Prime Day PC deals, but I had a hunch AMD would want to get out in front of the competition.

Now, I must give credit where it's due. As much as I am an all-knowing, all-predicting CPU guru, my manager Tabitha was actually the one who spotted these CPU discounts first, despite my checking the prices at the beginning of last week. Here's a closer look at the deals in question.

Upgrading to the best gaming PCs with DDR5 compatibility is no cheap task. If you're building something from scratch, assembling the parts without going over budget isn't easy, but seeing one of the most recent AMD processors slashed down to $160 is a surefire way of leaving yourself pennies to play with. 

It might not seem that appealing to opt for an "entry-level" processor these days, but with the most up-to-date Zen 4 architecture, these Ryzen 5s will feel more like a Ryzen 7 if you're used to last-gen standards. They also have integrated graphics for their money, which means if you're still saving to get one of the best graphics cards, you can at least assemble the rest of a PC now. 

The beefier Ryzen 7 8700G gives you better specs than both of the Ryzen 5 options but is still wallet-friendly versus the Intel Core i7s. Comparing specs against Intel's mid-range options, it's actually shy of where the Intel Core i5-13600K sits, but then again, AMD is always more stingy on its cores and threads, and carries performance through with its architecture instead. 

The point with AMD's processors is to provide value, and that's why I'm all for them.

Should you buy a Ryzen 8000G CPU?

Staring down the barrel of the Ryzen 9000 Series hitting the shelves, it might not be immediately tempting to buy one of these discounted processors. The new generation sports updated architecture, but will work on the same motherboard socket as the 7000 Series and 8000G Series, so enthusiasts would be doing themselves out of the most up-to-date models. 

On the other hand, that could provide a reason for bargain hunters to jump on one of these deals. If you're trying to pull together a PC build in a hurry, one of these super affordable options will give you decent power for now, and you'll still have the possibility to upgrade to a 9000 Series product down the road.

Admittedly, we are about to track a full range of Prime Day gaming deals, and CPU offers are always a mainstay of the event. I respect AMD's hustle for getting out in front of the competition, but it does make me want to caution you. If one of the highly coveted Ryzen 7000 X3D processors is historically cheap later in the Summer, you could arguably get even better value for money if you wait.

The other question is whether you save a bit more money and opt for an Intel CPU. 13th gen Intel CPUs are bound to drop to new lows this Prime Day, and do offer more cores and threads than AMD's 8000G Series. The Intel side does cost you a bit more money, but you likely won't get the same upgrading potential as on the AMD side of things. The 14th Gen Intel CPUs do work on the LGA700 motherboard socket, but the next wave will almost definitely require a new motherboard. AMD has shown that it supports its legacy platforms, so if you want the best futureproofing possible, that bears thinking about. 

Hunting for more deals this summer? Check out Prime Day Kindle deals, Prime Day PS5 deals, and Prime Day Meta Quest deals.

AMD is known for great value when it comes to its desktop processors, but its Computex 2024 presentation just doubled down on that MO. Not only has the company extended its current-gen AM5 motherboard socket for its brand new 9000 Series CPUs, but it’s releasing even more products for the AM4 platform that launched in 2016.

The AMD Ryzen 9000 Series will launch this July and will utilize a new Zen 5 architecture while remaining compatible with current motherboard chipsets the best CPUs for gaming use already. This means if your system is compatible with AMD’s Ryzen 7000 Series processors, or indeed the 8000G Series, you can upgrade to the new 9000 Series without having to invest in an entirely new system. 

The 9000 series flagship will be the Ryzen 9 9950X, which sports 16 Cores and 32 Threads, a 5.7GHz Boost Clock, 80MB of L2+L3 cache, and a 170W TDP. Interestingly, these specs aren’t all that different from the Ryzen 9 7950X3D, which also has 16 Cores and 32 Threads. 

The big difference between the two is in their architecture, as Zen 5, the new blueprint for 9000 Series desktop processors, is said to allow for a 16% mean performance increase across the board vs Zen 4. It allows for twice the data bandwidth thanks to a wider pipeline and vectors, two times the instruction bandwidth thanks to a new performance Core design, and the same uplift in AI performance thanks to increased throughput. 

Also launching in the 9000 Series is a Ryzen 9 9900X with 12 Cores and 24 Threads, a Ryzen 7 9700X with 8 Cores and 16 threads, and a Ryzen 5 9600X with 6 Cores and 12 Threads. 

We don’t have pricing information for the new 9000 Series yet, but its arrival could mean a price drop for the 7000 Series and a wider adoption of those CPUs in the best gaming PCs.  

AM4 for my next trick… 

As if a new generation of desktop processors wasn’t enough, AMD is yet again adding to the AM4 range with two new desktop CPUs. The Ryzen 9 5900XT also launches in July, packing 16 Cores and 32 threads and up to a 4.8GHz boost clock. 

The Ryzen 7 5800XT is armed with 8 Cores, 16 Threads, and up to the same 4.8GHz boost clock. The two will join a refreshed batch of Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 5000 Series processors that released at the end of January. One of these was the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D which brought the brand’s extra-beefy cache technology to older motherboards. 

The amount of value that can be squeezed out of the AM4 platform is getting ridiculous. It’s incredible that AMD is still supporting a chipset that arrived back in 2016 - especially when its original 5000 Series processors are still worth buying and offer some of the best budget options found on the shelves. 

This attitude really contrasts with Intel, which has supported its current LGA motherboard socket across the 12th, 13th, and 14th Generation of CPUs, but shows no sign of supporting anyone who bought into the 11th Generation. 

It’s fantastic that PC gamers who bought into the AMD ecosystem can upgrade older systems using AMD’s architecture - even if the part of me that reviews the best RAM for gaming feels a little antsy about their lack of DDR5 compatibility. 

Perhaps most impressively, this support for existing AMD systems has been confirmed to extend even further into the future. A graphic shown during the Computex briefing showed that the AM4 platform will be supported at least until 2025, and the AM5 platform will get support well into 2027, but most likely beyond that. 

For more portable PC gaming, check out the best gaming handhelds, the best gaming laptops, and the best VR headsets. 

Hold onto your chairs, AMD fans, as FSR 3.1 has been officially announced. The next version of the Radeon upscaling tech will make a whole bunch of improvements that kick visual defects to the curb, as well as make it easier for game developers to implement. However, there’s one specific perk that I’m especially excited for, and it involves enabling AMD’s Frame Generation tech to work with other upscalers. 

If you’re not quite sure what the words AMD FSR 3.1 even mean, but are eager to take advantage of the best graphics cards and their abilities, allow me to briefly fill you in. Short for FidelityFX Super Resolution, the tech is an upscaling solution that can dynamically change your resolution and fill in frame rate gaps to boost gaming PC performance. The current version, FSR 3, added that latter Frame Generation feature into the mix to compete with the likes of Nvidia DLSS, which boasts its own suite of tricks available to the latest GeForce GPUs.

At GTC 2024, AMD revealed that FSR 3.1 is currently in the oven, alongside a bunch of features to expect from its latest open-source upscaling package. Here’s a short list of all the enhancements included with the upcoming version via the graphics card maker’s official press announcement:

AMD FSR 3.1 improvements

• Upscaling visual quality improvements in certain situations, such as improved temporal stability (reduced flickering and/or shimmering), better preservation of detail, and ghosting and “fizziness” reduction. 
• Decoupling upscaling from frame generation, allowing AMD FSR 3.1 frame generation technology to work with other upscaling solutions.
• Support for Vulkan and Xbox Game Development kits
• New FidelityFX API makes it easier for developers to debug and provides forward compatibility with future versions of FSR 

Naturally, the biggest improvement sits at the top of the list, as artifacting and strange visuals are what’s most likely to deter players from using the tech. I’ve personally noticed some shenanigans like this going on when using upscalers, with details like wire mesh looking like a glitch in the Matrix. Those flaws don’t just apply to FSR, and I’ve definitely spotted weirdness in the likes of Cyberpunk 2077 with upscaling cranked up high, but it’s still excellent to see AMD focussing on a fix for its tech.

As for which game will benefit first, AMD says Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart will gain support for FSR 3.1 first. The image below shows off how the newest version will combat potential temporal stability and ghosting issues, and it looks like the tech lives up to its promises. 

As I’ve already teased, the idea of being able to use Frame Generation independently from upscaling has me pretty hyped. Not only will players decide exactly how much they want to rely on dynamically switching resolution, it’ll theoretically allow the tech to work side by side with other toolkits. AMD hasn’t directly specified whether that means you could, theoretically, pair FSR 3.1 Frame Generation with something like Nvidia DLSS to boost fps across more games, but it makes sense given the above pitch. 

Of course, that theory applies to games with direct support for Fluid Motion Frames, meaning you’ll still need to pick up a GPU like the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX to benefit from the full upscaling suite. That said, with support for Vulkan and Xbox Game Development kit support on route, and that new FidelityFX API being included with the package, we should see a surge in support across all games and platforms. 

Speaking of which, AMD also says FSR 3 is now available in 40 games. That might not sound like many if your Steam library is bulging at the seams, but keep in mind the GPU toolkit hasn’t been around that long, having only landed in September 2023. With the 3.1 revamp reaching developers in Q2, we’ll hopefully see that number receive a big boost by the end of the year, which is great news for anyone trying to improve performance without resorting to an upgrade.

Looking for a complete system? Check out the best Alienware gaming PC for powerhouse builds with a unique aesthetic. Alternatively, take a peek at the best gaming laptop and best gaming handheld models for ways to play Steam games on the go.

Minimum requirements for AMD FreeSync have received a refresh, and 1080p gaming monitors and TVs will now have to hit 144Hz or higher. The change means if you want to pick up a screen that prevents tearing using the graphics card tech, you’ll have to opt for a model with a faster refresh rate.

Admittedly, most of the best gaming monitor options out there right now support at least 120Hz. Sure, big budget screens are still clutching onto the refresh rate standard, but there are now also plenty of gaming TVs that will offer up faster visuals when hooked up to a gaming PC. Simply put, display tech has evolved to embrace speed, and these AMD FreeSync minimum requirements changes are a reaction to that.

In a new blog post, AMD touches on why future new FreeSync 1080p screens will now require over 144Hz. According to the graphics card giant, “60Hz was considered great for gaming” back when the tech made its debut, but “today, the majority of gaming monitors are 144Hz or higher, which clearly shows the upward refresh rate trend in the industry.” 

Simply put, AMD is getting with the times by refreshing its minimum requirements, and changing the bar means embracing faster refresh rates and panel types. It’s worth noting that existing displays won’t be cut off from support, and 60Hz gaming laptops with the feature will still exist for now. However, if you’re purchasing a new screen, it will have to hit the following specs to support FreeSync: 

In any case, this change is a sign that companies see 60Hz gaming monitors as a thing of the past. I’d still argue they have their place within the scene today, especially if you’re using a Steam Deck dock or aiming for lower, stable refresh rates on a budget PC. I guess the point is that modern GPUs are powerful enough not to need a helping hand running games at 1080p 60fps without things getting visually messy, serving as a testament to progress rather than a commentary on antiquated refresh rates. 

Should you buy an AMD FreeSync monitor? 

When picking up a gaming monitor, features like FreeSync and Nvidia’s G-Sync might not be at the forefront of your mind. However, both are a godsend when it comes combating screen tearing and latency, and FreeSync specifically will cater to players with Radeon graphics cards in their rigs. That’s not to say you can’t use the perk at all if you’ve got a GeForce card, as AMD’s tech will work with “G-Sync compatible screens”, but the results aren’t quite as effective as full blown FreeSync Premium and panels with Nvidia’s hardware built in. 

Deciding which V-Sync alternative to go for depends on your PC’s graphics card and how much you’re willing to pay. Since FreeSync Premium Pro and Nvidia G-Sync use chips within compatible screens, you’ll find that the price of said models is generally higher, but often comes as standard with some premium panels like the Samsung Odyssey OLED G9. Chances are that you’re going to end up with some sort of FreeSync or G-Sync compatibility no matter which screen you choose, and elevated tiers of the tech are considered an additional luxury. 

Looking for a UHD display? Check out the best 4K gaming monitors for super sharp solutions. Alternatively, swing by the best monitor for PS5 and best monitor for Xbox Series X for console flavoured screen options.

Over the past three years, AMD has been trying to fix GPU driver issues for Linux users using HDMI 2.1. Sadly, the body that calls the shots of the future of the standard has firmly said no to the company’s proposed resolution, which is more than a bit of a bummer. If anything, the outcome has made me more likely to use alternatives when hooking systems up to a monitor or TV, and I think more players could end up sticking with DisplayPort as time goes on.

Avoiding the standard used by the best gaming monitor feels like a silly move, and it’s not one I’d encourage completely, After all, if you’ve got the right HDMI cable and something like a PS5, Xbox Series X, or modern gaming PC that supports HDMI 2.1, you’ll be able to ramp things up to 4K 120Hz and beyond. However, that luxury isn’t available to all users, and that’s the reason why DisplayPort is currently more appealing in my book.

The long running saga of AMD trying to fix problems with HDMI 2.1 for Linux users has been consistently covered by Phoronix over the past few years. Today, the publication reported on the latest, and potentially final outcome, as the graphics card’s maker's proposition to make the standard open source has been denied by the HDMI Forum. For context, that’s a collective of tech giants, including Microsoft, Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, and various others.

The news was broken to Linux users experiencing issues with 4K 120Hz via HDMI 2.1 on Gitlab, with AMD engineer Alex Deucher stating “At this time an open source HDMI 2.1 implementation is not possible without running afoul of the HDMI Forum requirements.” Simply put, if you’re a gamer who prefers to use open source drivers, graphics card makers won’t be able to patch any issues with features.

To add salt into the wound, AMD has apparently also whipped up HDMI 2.1+ support for its open-source kernel driver, but the decision means that can’t be implemented either. Ultimately, the whole fiasco means that if you’ve got a Linux build, you’re better off sticking with DisplayPort to avoid quirks and hassle. That said, if your setup includes something like an LG B9 gaming TV and Radeon 6800 XT graphics card, you’re out of luck. 

It’s worth noting that my reasons for now preferring DisplayPort over HDMI are out of principle. After all, if you’re using a non-Linux rig, display driver fixes should be a regular occurrence. However, just because something doesn’t affect you now doesn’t mean it won’t creep up in the future, and by embracing open source support, HDMI could help all users take full advantage of features without a hitch in the future.

Looking for a portable powerhouse? Check out the best gaming handheld and best gaming laptop for ways to play Steam games on the go. Alternatively, swing by the best Steam Deck dock if you want to turn Valve's device into a desktop hybrid.