For years now, I've been banging on about how flagship desktop processors are kind of pointless. "Mid-range" options really aren't mid-range anymore, to the point where you can pretty comfortably pair a Ryzen 5 or Intel Core i5 with a powerful 4K graphics card and not really run into tangible bottlenecks. So what are you paying for with a Ryzen 9 or Intel Core i9? Usually, higher temperatures, bigger power draws, and slightly better speeds all in the name of saying you have the best CPU for gaming inside your computer.

Intel seems to be catching onto this. It might be really impressive for these brands to say "we make the fastest processor ever built" every time they launch a new family of chips but, let's face it, the headline-grabbing ones are probably going to be too expensive for most gamers and PC builders to even consider. Moreover, when mid-range options can offer unreal performance, I'm not sure that many people outside of an enthusiast lens should really care. It's the 5- and 7-tiered processors that have my attention when a new range is announced, and that's because they're all you're really going to need.

Intel has opted not to launch a Core Ultra 9 in its Arrow Lake refresh; instead, it's throwing all of its backing into the new Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus. There's no claim that it's the fastest processor on the shelves; rather, a claim that this is the fastest processor this brand has ever made. I like that, because it speaks to the new self-improvement era Intel seems to be in. It's not trying to be better than AMD; it's trying to work on itself and its own relationship with consumers, which is exactly what a $299 / £299 price is going to do.

Specs & Features

Similar to the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, there's a marked improvement in value for money when you look at this CPU's spec sheet. Intel wanted to make an enthusiast processor in the 270K Plus without making it an inaccessible flagship people couldn't afford, but I also see the pricing here as a sign that Intel knows it needs to strike a better value line if it wants to keep up with AMD.

The good news is that despite fairer pricing, there's also an improvement over the spec sheet of the last-gen Intel Core Ultra 7 265K, which had 20 cores and 20 threads compared to the 24 of each in the 270K Plus. A last-gen boost clock of 5.5GHz might look a little consistent with the 265K, but with extra performance and efficiency cores and a more affordable price tag, the new version is definitely going to outclass it.

The interesting part comes when you compare the 270K Plus with last gen's actual flagship, the Core Ultra 9 285K. It had the exact same cores and threads configuration as the 270K Plus, the same cache size, and only a slightly faster boost clock of 5.7GHz. Its price was a much more demanding $589 in the US and £549 in the UK, which goes to show the value for money struck with the 270K Plus.

It also shows that Intel seems to have learned a lesson about CPU tiering. What's in a name? Because this might as well be a flagship - in fact, looking at its spec list, it is one in all but name. The 270K Plus is a Core Ultra 9 in disguise but, if you go back far enough, Intel Core i5s have been even older flagship i9s from previous generations hiding in plain sight. Intel has always offered more cores and threads than AMD, but it might finally be learning that it's the tiering structure and over-pricing of each one that's been keeping it behind in the race.

Speaking of the competition, the obvious rivals to a processor like this are AMD's X3D heroes. Intel might have more cores and threads in the 270K Plus than some of them, but it's not got the same clever double-decker cache. It seems to me like Intel's answer on the software side was to create tools that could increase efficiency, namely, the Intel Binary Optimization tool.

I love the idea of this. If you can't answer the raw hardware innovation of Ryzen, find another route to glory. I'm sure this is something that will be worked on as time goes on, and we'll see it build with each new range, but right now I haven't noticed any tangible performance gains through it. Other reviewers have, so take my thoughts with a pinch of salt, but I also hope we see the list of supported games expand for it because, as you'll see from the names below, it's not the most useful so far.

• Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider
• Assassin's Creed Mirage
• Borderlands 3
• Cyberpunk 2077
• Far Cry 6
• Geekbench 6.3+
• Hitman 3
• Hogwarts Legacy
• Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered
• Naraka: Bladepoint
• Remnant 2
• Tiny Tina's Wonderlands

Performance

As I mentioned when reviewing the 250K Plus, I came to this new generation of Intel CPUs with a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. Having come from Intel's two most recent Raptor Lake i7 processors, I had a long list of quality-of-life improvements I was hoping to see. I was utterly sick of my PC's fans spiking up at random, my processor being pretty much impossible to cool even with the might of NZXT's AIOs, and I detested having a CPU that was so powerful, yet suffered constant frame rate stutters and dips due to volatile architecture.

I was definitely appeased by the Core Ultra 5. It offered excellent 4K gaming performance when paired with a PNY Slim RTX 5080, but its temperatures were sublime, and it felt like hard work finding tasks that would bring it to 70 degrees Celsius.

When first installing and playing around with its beefier sibling, I worried I was back to the status quo. Fans were a little louder, and the temperature reading on the pump head of my AIO was fluctuating. Truth be told, I think this was all in my head, really.

After weeks of testing this processor, I don't think it's fair to compare it to the Raptor Lake i7s at all. It isn't unruly; its temperatures are actually very controlled for a chip this powerful; it's just a hefty one that's naturally going to demand a little more than the Ultra 5. Hell, if I think of it like the Ultra 9 it sort of is, its temperatures are brilliantly calm for the power it gives you. I find that it idles between 36 degrees and 39 degrees depending on which work tasks I have running and, although some spikes during benchmarking took it up to the 80-degree mark, I only saw a peak of 86, which came during a Cinebench test. Again, compared to plenty of Raptor Lake products that reached boiling point in tests like these, the Arrow Lake refresh Ultra 7 might as well have ice in its veins.

For the most part, when gaming and not doing maximal tests, this CPU stays in really manageable temperature ranges in the 60s and low 70s, which is really impressive for the kind of numbers it can churn out.

The 270K Plus certainly achieved some impressive content creation benchmark scores. Of the chips I've tested in Cinebench's refreshed multi thread test, the 270K Plus scored the highest, and by some margin. It's trounced even the 250K Plus in the multi thread test when it already had a pretty impressive result over the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F in the Quoted Tech Horizon build I reviewed. In the single thread test, the gap wasn't quite so large between the 250K Plus and 270K Plus, and AMD's Ryzen 7 9700F actually scored higher.

But in all three Blender benchmark tests, the 270K Plus now holds the record-high scores of any CPU I've tested. I'd like to run some updated benchmarks with the Ryzen 7 9800X3D to see how things compare, but either way, Intel's clearly geared this thing toward excellent content creation performance at a $300 price point.

Gaming tests are similarly impressive - although I do feel the need to caveat them by saying that the Core Ultra 5 and 7 have been tested in the same machine, with the added help of an RTX 5080. Meanwhile, the AMD Ryzens were tested with varying components, mostly with an RX 7900 GRE, which packs less of a punch.

In Total War: Warhammer 3, both current-gen Intel processors performed brilliantly, but what's interesting is that the 250K Plus actually outperformed its non-flagship/flagship sibling by a measly frame in two tests. I did notice bigger temperature spikes in these benchmarks for the 270K Plus, so it could have been an anomaly due to higher thermals, but either way, not what I expected to see and really speaks to how well the 250K Plus performs.

In Homeworld 3 and all of my Cities: Skylines scenario tests, the 270K Plus ruled supreme on the Intel side of things. That said, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D's average frame rates in these scenarios are still comfortably in the lead. In these sorts of games, your CPU is going to make a big difference, and in Planet Zoo I did see a marked difference with the 270K Plus over the 250K of 78 up to 97fps.

For its ability to boot out higher numbers for the most part, the 270K Plus does keep its power draw under control. It idles at a similar 30W to the 250K Plus, which is great, but is a bit hungrier for wattage when you're using it more strenuously. In Total War: Warhammer 3's Battle benchmark, for example, the 270K Plus asked for a peak of 85W, while the 250K Plus only required 72W.

Should you buy the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus?

It's a flagship in all but name, offering bigger, badder performance without the price tag that usually goes along with an Intel Core i9/Ultra 9 package. I'd absolutely recommend the 270K Plus to gamers and content creators, but I'd caveat it by saying that not everyone is going to need it. See, while it avoids the typical annoyances of "flagship" chips, it's still a little more expensive, demands more power, and takes a bit more effort to keep cool. As impressive as Intel has made the 270K Plus, and as much as it's tried to avoid the pitfalls of an Ultra 9, the Ultra 250K Plus is also pretty damn good for a whole hundred less of your hard-earned dollars.

I'd say that if you're a content creator, or you spend a lot of time playing very CPU-intensive games, you'll benefit from the extra money spent on the Ultra 7, but if not, most gamers will be able to pair the 250K Plus with a decent 4K GPU and won't be left asking where their frames are.

The 270K Plus is certainly priced competitively, which is what it needs to be to win people over against pricier X3D rivals from AMD. In my experience, though, those can offer extra gaming performance and plentiful forward upgrades, so it's still a difficult toss-up.

Intel certainly seems like it's turning over a new leaf, and in many ways, the accessible price and fantastic performance of the 270K Plus is testament to that. It's a fantastic investment in the CPU market right now, but it's up to Intel to make sure that stays true well into the future.

How I tested the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has been socketed in my gaming and work PC for a few weeks now, and I've run the full gauntlet of CPU benchmarks on it before writing up this review. I paired it with an RTX 5080 GPU, 32GB of G.Skill DDR5 RAM, and an NZXT Kraken Plus 240mm RGB cooler.

I performed content creation benchmark tests through Blender and Cinebench, watching power draws and temperatures through NZXT Cam software. I also performed gaming tests through various CPU-hungry games. I compared scores and value to similar gaming CPUs.

For more on how we test gaming PCs, take a look at the full-length GamesRadar+ Hardware Policy.

There are other components to research if you're looking to buy one of the best gaming PCs. Take a look at the best RAM for gaming and the best graphics cards.

The current memory crisis has a lot to answer for, but it could be helping Intel to turn a new pro-consumer leaf, as the brand's VP and General Manager of its Enthusiast Business has told Tom's Hardware that he wants to support the Raptor Lake platform for years into the future. The LGA 1700 motherboard socket is still home to some of the best CPUs for gaming, despite its controversies, but if Intel is planning AMD-style socket longevity, it could see a bit of a redemption arc coming.

Intel's VP, Robert Hallock, told Tom's Hardware, "Going forward, 10nm products like Raptor Lake; that is a core part of the portfolio that I want to offer to people for years to come."

Specifically, it's Raptor Lake's serendipitous launch timing that means it's available on both DDR4 and DDR5 motherboards, which makes Hallock keen to support it. He said:

"LGA 1700 is still a good socket. Lots of people [are] still interested in DDR4, so [we’ll] keep offering, and you'll see [pricing] smooth out over time. It'll come back to normal. That's the plan."

The VP is referring to the fact that, thanks to AI-induced RAM shortages and massive inflation in the current generation of memory, a lot of veteran PC builders are reluctant to move to a newer standard. That's especially true of PC gamers who have chosen an AMD, DDR4 gen processor for their machines, since AM4 as a platform has been supported since 2016 with new products for them to upgrade to.

Meanwhile, Intel's socket support has been in stints of two or three generations before the next one comes along, forcing folks to get a new motherboard and CPU, and making the previous one obsolete.

I personally never thought we'd see Raptor Lake gain renewed support after the volatility issues the 13th and 14th generation products faced. When the Core Ultra Arrow Lake range arrived, I fully thought that was Intel sweeping the LGA 1700 socket under the rug to move on from its controversies.

Thankfully, while the Raptor Lake chips and their socket are DDR5-tilted, they're also DDR4 compatible because the 12th generation products that launched alongside the platform arrived just before DDR5 boards were available. That means there's a niche category of motherboard that supports these DDR5 chips, but stays true to the DDR4 memory interface.

This has allowed a lot of prebuilt gaming PC makers to offer more up-to-date components within PCs without charging inflated DDR5 prices. These still wouldn't be my go-to recommendation at the moment, since you will be locked to DDR4 performance and speeds only, but at least you can get a 50 Series or RX 90 series GPU, up-to-date SSDs, and (now potentially refreshed) CPUs without those massive RAM expenses.

If Intel offers new CPUs to the Raptor Lake platform, that would be a massive boon for anyone who's invested in one of these gaming PCs. As of previous rumors throughout 2026, it seems like a refresh called "Raptor Lake Next" is slated for the first few months of 2027.

Beyond Raptor Lake, I think this attitude is an excellent sign of things to come for other Intel platforms, like the newer Arrow Lake (LGA 1851) socket. I recently reviewed the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, and I absolutely love its performance and value, but I did mention this exact issue in its review. If Intel is finished with making products for this socket, it's not the long-term investment a lot of PC gamers should invest in. That might not be Intel's outlook after all.

Want to read up on more PC components? Take a look at the best RAM for gaming, the best graphics cards, and the best SSDs for gaming.

I just finished up reviewing the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus desktop CPU and, thanks to the annual Intel Gamer Days sale, it may just be a great time to consider upgrading. Granted, it isn't the best time to be thinking about buying any of the best CPUs for gaming since the economy is in a foul state, but if you happen to have the rest of your rig assembled, or you're already on this motherboard socket and fancy an upgrade, listen up.

The TLDR here is that Newegg is currently selling the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus in a pretty decent bundle. Technically, at $219.99 at Newegg, the CPU is $20 over its launch price, which is hardly the foundation of a good deal. That said, Intel's Gamer Days means you can add a "free gift" onto your purchase, which scores you a Cooler Master AIO cooler worth $79.99 and two upcoming triple-A games, Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis and Star Wars: Galactic Racer. Promo code BTS3113 also nets you $10 off the whole package to boot.

That pretty much means you're getting those two games (worth $119.98 in pre-order purchases) plus a cooler for that additional $10 (after the promo code) you're paying over the 250K Plus's price.

Despite the added bonuses, the CPU is really the star of the show here. After having understandably mixed experiences with the Raptor Lake CPUs, I felt like the brand had turned a new leaf after I tested the 250K Plus. Gone were the annoying temperature spikes and performance dips of the 14700K I had been using. While giving me a brilliant 4K companion to the RTX 5080 I was testing, it also stayed remarkably calm while gaming, creating content, or idling.

Temperatures were so controllable, and with an AIO installed on top of it, I had a hard time finding any task that would push it above 65 degrees Celsius. And it's no slouch in terms of value for money anyway, giving you 18 cores and 18 threads to play with.

Are there concerns about its motherboard socket not being supported for very long? Absolutely, but from everything Intel has done this year, I'm a lot more confident this is a brand that knows how vital long-term support for its platforms is going to be. If it hasn't learned that lesson by now, AMD is going to continue its momentum in the CPU market and steal a lot of its lunch.

I'd thoroughly recommend the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Even without a discount proper, it offers unreal value for money, even compared to some of AMD's X3D chips. That's going the extra mile for a processor this affordable - honestly, I'd have been satisfied with a non-volatile refresh.

For more, take a look at the best gaming PCs, the best RAM for gaming, and the best graphics card.

Intel's Gamer Days sale is back in action, and this year we have Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis and Star Wars Galactic Racer bundled in for free with select Intel machines and components. You'll have to wait until each title's release (October for Star Wars and a delayed February 2027 for Tomb Raider), but with a combined value of $119.98 these freebies are offsetting a few of 2026's pricing mishaps right now.

The promotion began on August 10, hitting everything from gaming laptops to gaming PCs, but I'm only seeing a handful of retailers advertising the freebies on their sites. Intel notes that it's running its giveaway with "participating partners" only, so it's worth waiting for that banner to make sure you're actually getting your freebies. At the time of writing, I've only spotted the bundle at Amazon, Newegg and on select few Microcenter gadgets. We're still waiting on Best Buy and gaming laptop brands themselves.

The best value, though, is going to be in the cheaper seats. That's where you'll find the $119.98's worth of free games doing a little more heavy lifting. With component shortages and price inflation dominating PC gaming over the course of the year so far, any chance to wiggle those numbers in your favor is going to be worth investigating. Amazon's $999 Acer Nitro V, for example, really only works out at $879 if you were interested in the games anyway - and you'd be hard pressed to find an RTX 5050 machine at that price on any given day in 2026.

Or take the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. That's a $199.99 processor at launch, but Newegg has it listed for $209.99 (with a $10 promo code). Normally that's a thumbs down, but with the freebies thrown in (not to mention a free cooler) it's a fantastic offer.

You'll find my top picks from Intel's Gamer Days promotion just below.

What's included in Intel Gamer Days?

Intel has laid out the goalposts for its bundles this year, and - surprise surprise - you're going to be upgrading to its latest Series 2 and Series 3 processors, with the exception of desktop Intel Core 14th Gen chips. Intel lays it out like this:

Desktop

• Intel Core Ultra 5 Plus and 7 Plus Series 2
• Intel Core Ultra 5, 7, and 9 Series 2
• Intel Core 14th Gen

Mobile

• Intel Core Ultra 5, 7, and 9 Series 3
• Intel Core 5 Plus and 7 Plus Series 2
• Select systems with Intel Core Ultra 5, 7, and 9 Series 2
• Intel Core Series 2
• Intel Arc-G handhelds

Intel Arc Graphics

• Intel Arc B-Series
• Intel Arc A-Series

Essentially, anything running Intel's latest processors or graphics will likely be eligible for the promotion, but always check the offer is displayed on the product page before assuming.

How to redeem Intel Gamer Days freebies

Shortly after purchase, you'll receive your Intel Gamer Days master key used to unlock your free games. Head to Intel's Software Offer site and sign in or create an account.

You can then redeem your code by following on-screen instructions, though this must be done before October 31, 2026 to be eligible. You'll be able to download once each game becomes available, though note that you'll need to be using the Intel gadget you bought to do so.

When does Intel Gamer Days end?

Intel's Gamer Days promotional period ends on September 13, so there's still a month to see what other retailers have to offer.

• See all Intel at Amazon

We're also rounding up the best gaming handhelds and the best CPU for gamers if you're after some alternative options as well.

The momentum in the desktop CPU market has been going all AMD's way for years now, and while that's down to AMD for making the right choices, it's also been due to multiple missteps by Intel. I don't want to speak too soon, but Intel feels like it's turned over a new leaf in 2026, to the point where the competition could be about to get very fierce. Even the way Team Blue is getting its messaging across has shifted. AI is so far from its desktop CPU conversation; gamers are a priority, and there's been a brilliant refocusing on value for money. As someone who's really interested in the best CPU market, I'm daring to hope, but there's a lot still to prove.

I'm sure I don't need to fill you in on the PR and consumer nightmare that was the Raptor Lake refresh issues. I'm sure I don't need to talk to you about Intel's longstanding reluctance to support its motherboard sockets compared to AMD. And even if you didn't hear about the lacklustre price-to-performance of the first batch of Core Ultra CPUs at their launch, I'm sure you've been hesitant to grab one because of all the noise AMD's been making.

Intel's course correcting with two new flagship desktop processors this year. It's not calling them flagship products because neither of them has the number 9 in their name, but I'm calling them flagship because their reasonable price tags and refreshed attitude toward gamers feels like a statement of intent for where the brand wants to go. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus stands as a budget option at $199 / £199, but its specs, performance, and remedies of past Intel CPU generations are nowhere close to the "budget" end of the scale.

Specs & Features

So, after one thoroughly whelming generation of processors on the LGA 1851 motherboard socket, we really weren't sure whether a follow-up was going to arrive. Rumors swirled that Intel was already finished with it before the Plus variants were announced. By all accounts, it looked ready to move straight onto the next "Lake". Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, and we've seen this latest refreshed generation use the same motherboard socket as 2024. Intel now claims it's planning AMD-style support and longevity for its platforms, including Raptor Lake, but in a PC market this volatile due to AI-induced RAMflation, it all remains to be seen.

In other words, Intel has a lot of good faith to build up with consumers again. I certainly hope we see this platform get support into the future, because as I'll come onto, there's some really strong performance to be unlocked from it. I want to believe that Intel has turned a new leaf, but it's going to have to back up the talk with action if it wants to become the trusted CPU maker AMD has become known as.

It's certainly going to be hard to argue with a decade of AM4 support.

All of that is to say that the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the same motherboard socket as the original batch of Core Ultra products, but it's not one you can upgrade to if you have an Intel 12th, 13th, or 14th generation CPU/motherboard.

The 250K Plus might feel like a successor in name to the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K, but its specs land it somewhere between last gen's Ultra 5 and Intel Core Ultra 7 265K. It has 18 cores and 18 threads with a 5.3Ghz boost clock. That's up from last gen's Ultra 5 at 14 cores and threads at 5.2GHz, but just under the 265K at 20 cores and threads at 5.5GHz.

Considering the 265K retails for £269-£300 in the UK and roughly $300 in the US, and the 245K sells for ~$194 / ~£170, the new-gen model provides a serious price-to-performance boost and is clearly all about value for money. That's bold, because it's trying to beat AMD at its own game, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

There's a 30MB total cache on board, which isn't close to AMD's Ryzen 7 7800X3D, which offers a 96MB L3 cache - remember, this is the part of the CPU that the X3D options double up on to provide better gaming and content creation performance. Considering that chip is usually sold in the $350 range on a good day, you're getting some great value for money here with the 250K Plus.

The latest set of Intel processors doesn't have an answer for AMD's X3D architecture, but that doesn't mean they don't have other tricks up their sleeve. The Intel Binary Optimization Tool is a feature to watch. It's, I suppose, akin to DLSS in a way in that it's a subliminal software perk that goes hand in hand with the latest generation of hardware. There's no AI upscaling happening here though; the Binary Optimization Tool simply allows Intel's software to run games more efficiently on its hardware (in theory), which could lead to better performance overall in certain games.

The reason I say it's one to watch is that, like with DLSS, it is going to rely on compatibility within games on a software level. It's not like AMD's 3D V-cache where the hardware supplies performance boosts across the board because it's a result of architecture. It's still in its early phases, and I haven't heard a whole lot of noise about it since Intel launched the Core Ultra Plus chips. So far, looking at the list of games it can provide you boosts in, things are fairly thin.

To make matters more confusing, some games have compatibility with Intel's APO Optimization, but only some within that list (bolded ones) have compatibility with the Binary Optimization Tool.

• Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail
• League of Legends
• Serious Sam 4
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider
• Watch Dogs Legion
• Assassin's Creed Mirage
• Battlefield V
• Borderlands 3
• Cyberpunk 2077
• Far Cry 6
• Geekbench 6.3+
• Hitman 3
• Hogwarts Legacy
• Kerbal Space Program 2
• Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered
• Naraka: Bladepoint
• Remnant 2
• The Callisto Protocol
• Tiny Tina's Wonderlands
• World of Warships

Performance

Intel's desktop CPUs have never really had all that much trouble offering decent gaming and content creation performance, especially because they cram so many cores and threads in that there's always enough muscle within to handle even the heaviest lifting in demanding games.

The questions for me going into testing were more about thermal control, volatility, and a bit of bloody peace and quiet.

For context, I reviewed the Intel Core i5-3600K, which I loved. But then I moved on to the Intel Core i7-13700K and after that, the 14700K. While both of the Raptor Lake i7 chips booted out some really decent power, they were just a pain in the arse.

Thankfully, I didn't get hit with major volatility issues to the point of damaged CPUs or anything, but even with the BIOS updates to counter the issue, I was still getting the most annoying, random fan flare-ups because thermal control was just non-existent and voltages were doing whatever they felt like. This resulted in an irreversibly loud PC while working day-to-day, but manifested in random and very annoying frame stutters and dips while playing games. I also couldn't play games without the CPU riding a low of at least 70 degrees no matter the title, and that was with a full-sized NZXT AIO cooler.

I immediately noticed a massive difference with the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Ambient temperatures were sitting in the mid 30s with an ambient power of 30-42W when idling or running my work applications. And even during this ludicrous heatwave-riddled summer in the UK, it's sitting at about 42 degrees when I'm working, and there are no random, annoying temperature spikes. Playing my go-to Hunt Showdown with a 14700K meant temps in the 70s and even 80s, but with the 250K Plus it's so steady in the high 50s and 60s with no trouble at all.

In this entire sitting of review tests, I've only seen a peak of 75 in one of Blender's benchmarks. For the most part it's still calm, cool, and collected under pressure and tends to sit in the 60s. That's all with the same thermal paste and NZXT Kraken Plus AIO cooler I was using with the 14700K, which shows you the serious performance boosts of this motherboard platform versus Raptor Lake.

Non-gaming benchmarks are pretty impressive. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus demolishes the Ryzen 7 7800X3D in Blender. I haven't gone back to test that Ryzen CPU in the updated form of Cinebench, but compared to the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F I tested in the Quoted Tech Horizon, the 250K Plus does come out on top. Content creation is pretty great for the money then, even if these comparisons aren't exactly like-for-like because my testing rig is using a PNY RTX 5080 Slim, while the AMD reviews used a 7900 GRE and RX 9070 XT respectively.

The question I wanted to ask with gaming tests in this review was: could the latest Intel Core Ultra 5 keep up with an RTX 5080, to the point of negating the need for spending more on the Ultra 7 Plus. Honestly, while I haven't tested the more powerful 270K Plus yet, I'd argue the answer here is yes. While I'm sure there are better gaming performances to be netted, I think for $200 you're getting a really great 4K gaming processor here. The caveat to that is whether or not you're playing CPU-intensive games all the time. Let's look at some numbers.

In Total War: Warhammer 3's Battle benchmark, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus combined with the RTX 5080 scored 86fps, which is up from Quoted Tech's Ryzen 7 9700F score of 72fps, and up from the Ryzen 7 7800X3D's 53fps. Across the board, the Intel Core Ultra provided strong scores in Total War against comparable Ryzen chips, but that could be due to the better GPU used in these tests. In less formal testing, things are interesting because the Ryzen 7 7800X3D did pack some inexplicable performance boosts.

Cities: Skyline's community-made scenarios still fall in favor of AMD, despite Intel's updated architecture and a more powerful GPU. While these numbers aren't as set in stone as formal benchmarks, they're averages taken while playing the same sequences, and AMD wins it comfortably. In Planet Zoo, while the Ryzen 7 7800X3D scored an average of 95, the 250K Plus was a bit humbler at 78fps when operating a fully populated scenario at normal speed and 57fps when speeding up time and zooming into those busy areas of a park. Keep in mind the slowly ageing 7800X3D has ten fewer cores than Intel's latest Ultra 5.

I wouldn't argue these more modest scores are reasons not to opt for the Ultra 5, but it does show you that the X3D chips are capable of some really bold performances, especially since those numbers were recorded with an older GPU that's not got the oomph of the RTX 5080.

The only other gaming-based question I wanted to address was how the Binary Optimization Tool can impact things. I went into Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Cyberpunk for that, and compared my benchmarks with when it was turned off.

Unfortunately, in both the games I had access to that have support for this feature, I saw only tiny differences in benchmarking scores with and without Binary Optimization switched on. In Shadow of the Tomb Raider, I saw an increase by one solitary frame, and in Cyberpunk it actually decreased the benchmarking score by two. There is also the chance that I haven't managed to get it to work properly, because other sites have reported a 5% to 20% performance boost from it on average.

One more thing I will say as a general use note is that if you're planning to overclock your RAM with this CPU, maybe look elsewhere. I've paired the 250K Plus with some G.Skill performance memory that was provided by Intel to review both of its new chips with. I can see one XMP profile onboard which attempts to unlock 7200MT/s, but anytime I've attempted to boost past 4800MT/s with the 250K Plus I've been kicked back to the BIOS and told no. I'm sure with your motherboard and RAM, your mileage may vary. It's unlikely this is going to be an overclocker's first pick anyway, but it's worth keeping in mind.

Should you buy the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus?

Intel has said that it plans to support its existing motherboard platforms from here on out, and although there are rumors around the next motherboard socket arriving, I'd be inclined to believe that Intel isn't going to go back on its word, especially since we all see how the momentum in the CPU market is drifting more and more in AMD's favor. Intel needs to provide long-term socket support to win back some good faith, but judging by its track record, it all remains to be seen. That's maybe one of the bigger question marks looming over the Intel Core Ultra Plus CPUs right now, but if you're willing to trust this new-age Intel culture, there isn't much preventing me from recommending the 250K Plus.

Because that's the real issue for Intel here. Putting the lacklustre launch of Core Ultra behind us, and ignoring the blip of Raptor Lake volatility, the problem with Intel in recent years hasn't been to do with poor CPUs. Sure maybe small upgrades for full prices haven't been the most inspiring thing, but it can't be disputed that this brand makes really good desktop processors. But excellent entries alone haven't been enough. AMD has been beating Team Blue through value for money, socket longevity, and innovative architectural developments.

You can't really just determine whether a CPU is worth investing in based on performance alone anymore, because AMD has it beat through years' worth of upgrade paths. If LGA 1851 is indeed a dead platform, then the insane value for money here is a small blip that'll fade into obscurity very quickly.

There's excellent gaming and content creation to be had here for the money, and the value is hard to argue with, even if X3D chips can offer you bolder frame rates in a wider suite of games. Binary Optimization is there to be built on, and I hope it becomes a feather in the brand's cap. Personally, I'm just happy with the genuine improvements that have been made to thermals and stability since the Raptor Lake refresh scandal.

I'd thoroughly recommend this processor for its price, and for many it's all the 4K power you're going to need for gaming, work, and content creation.

How I tested the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus

I used the latest Core Ultra 5 in my own gaming PC for over a month before writing this review. In that time, I used it for all sorts of work, play, and creative tasks, but also undertook more formal benchmarking to put it through its paces.

I evaluated its performance through comparisons with spec-similar AMD chips, as well as price comparisons with the rest of the market. I also used my knowledge of the CPU market to make a thorough review for consumers to help them while making a buying decision.

For more on how we test gaming PCs, check out the full-length GamesRadar+ hardware policy.

You can also look up the best gaming PCs, the best graphics cards, and the best RAM for gaming.

Intel just dropped its latest graphics driver for Windows, but the 32.0.101.8860 package only mentions support for Arc G3 Extreme chipsets. Yes, the cheaper non-extreme APU technically hasn't made its way to any handhelds yet, but it did officially land alongside its flagship sibling, so support should be on the table.

As a reminder, the Intel Arc G3-series is set to power the best gaming handhelds and challenge chips like the AMD Ryzen Z2 Extreme. Effectively, the Panther Lake APU will reside within premium portables like the $1,700 MSI Claw 8 EX AI+, helping it pull harder fps punches than the chip with the ROG Xbox Ally X, but the non-Extreme version should be powering alternatives that aren't astronomically priced.

The bad news is that, as of July 2026, those promised standard Arc G3 handhelds are MIA. Videocardz highlights that Intel's graphics driver 32.0.101.8860 WHQL only lists the Arc G3 Extreme within its valid products, which suggests Intel isn't currently considering support for the vanilla variant.

I should stress that this doesn't mean non-extreme Intel Arc G3 handhelds aren't happening. The takeaway here is that, at least for now, the Arc G3 Extreme is the first and only new-gen portable chipset on the track, and the lack of a shout-out in the driver update could mean handhelds using the chip aren't imminent.

The last thing I wanted to see is no mention of Intel's "cheaper" Arc G3 chipset given the current climate. We've swiftly entered a reality where handhelds like the Steam Deck OLED, which used to start at $550, now cost almost a grand for the 1TB model, and the ROG Xbox Ally portables I criticized for being too expensive last year are now "reasonable" compared to most other Windows options. Alanis sang about nonsense like this.

Effectively, the only Arc G3 handhelds I can see on the horizon right now will set you back well over a grand. The OneXPlayer 3 should start at $1,399 if it survives crowdfunding, and while Acer did announce a Predator Atlas 8, I'm not holding my breath for that one.

Don't get me wrong; if the longstanding PC giant can get one of those in my hands for cheaper than every other option out there, and offer a lower-spec non-extreme model, it'll firmly have my attention. Otherwise, it'll end up swiftly becoming vaporware, or arriving with a price tag that means it's not relevant.

The handheld is seriously suffering at the hands of AI data centre demand, just like the gaming hardware scene at large. I do think device makers can do a bit more to weather the storm, though, and that includes actually using cheaper chipset SKUs like the Arc G3.

If you've got Valve's handheld to hand, swing by the best Steam Deck docks to turn your portable into a makeshift Steam Machine.

Intel Arc G3 gaming handhelds are now officially a thing, as the chipmaker has unveiled its portable Panther Lake line-up. In addition to introducing its Extreme and vanilla APUs, it also confirmed that it'll be working with Acer, MSI, and OneXPlayer, and two of those portables have now been unveiled.

In a press release, Intel says its Arc G3 family marks "a new era for handheld graphics" while outlining support for XeSS 3 AI upscaling with multi-frame generation alongside DirectX 12 and ray tracing abilities. In line with that announcement, Acer has officially confirmed that its Predator Atlas 8 portable will drop in October, but OneXPlayer 3 and 2 Pro rivals will show up as soon as this June.

I've had Acer and OneXPlayer in my inbox revealing their new 8-inch handhelds so far, but I haven't heard from MSI about its Claw EX 8 AI+. Intel has confirmed the Claw 8 AI+ sequel is also coming, though, meaning we'll have three new premium contenders hitting the battlefield this year.

All three Intel Arc G3 handhelds are promising the same premium Panther Lake performance dressed up in a slightly different way. The Acer Predator Altas 8 and MSI Claw EX 8 AI+ feel like straight-up rivals to the ROG Xbox Ally X, boasting larger 8-inch 120Hz 1920 x 1200 displays and integrated controls. As is tradition with OneXPlayer, its duo of handhelds takes a quirkier approach to design, with the 2 Pro boasting detachable controls like the Switch and the 8.8-inch OneXPlayer 3 boasting hybrid laptop and tablet abilities.

The new trio of handhelds should mark the beginning of a new portable chipset generation for Intel. That in itself is a good thing since it'll help keep things competitive, as the market is dominated by Ryzen Z2 options right now. However, I can't help but feel like premium portable PCs are the last thing the scene needs right now, especially seeing as Valve just hiked its 1TB Steam Deck OLED to just under $1,000.

If anything, players are desperately in need of more options under $600, but I have a funny feeling we won't see anything quite like the OG Asus ROG Ally in terms of performance and price any time soon. If even a device like the Steam Deck OLED with the same chipset as the 2023 model can't resist price hikes, then it's easy to see why any notion of an affordable handheld might be cooked.

I'll still be looking to put the trio of Intel Arc G3 handhelds to the test when I can, as I'm keen to see whether Panther Lake will actually usher in a new dawn for portable PC performance. Multi-frame generation will undoubtedly make a difference to perceivable speeds and draw on what Nvidia has been doing with DLSS on graphics cards, but if all three end up over $1,000, I'll be either pointing most players towards the white Xbox Ally, or recommending you take a portable play gap year.

Psst, first brand to make a handheld that most players can afford gets an icy Coke on me.

• Gaming handhelds at Best Buy
• Handheld accessories at Amazon

Sticking with Valve's portable? Swing by the best Steam Deck docks for ways to make the handheld into a hybrid machine.

Intel is seemingly ready to send its Arc G3 line up to the best gaming handheld battlefield, and the grand unveiling could happen tomorrow. That's May 28 for those of you looking to circle your calendars, which might be handy if you've been waiting for anything portable PC-shaped by Acer.

In an Intel Arc G3 report by Videocardz, the publication says it has information regarding the May 28 unveiling. The core of the leak links to MSI's Claw 8 EX AI+, a successor to the excellent Claw 8 AI+ that's already popped up a few times via accidental retail listings and benchmarks. It pairs 32GB RAM, a 1TB SSD, an 80Wh battery, and an 8-inch 1920×1200 120Hz display with a 14-core Panther Lake chip.

The new MSI handheld should pile some pressure on existing premium portables like the ROG Xbox Ally X, although that ultimately hinges on price. It apparently isn't alone on the reveal podium, though, as Acer is apparently set to release a contender known as the "Predator Atlas 8".

The longstanding tech maker's Predator Atlas 8 is technically a sequel to Acer's original Nitro Blaze lineup. What's that? You had no idea Acer handhelds were a thing? Well, that's probably because the company released a 7-inch model in very limited quantities before deciding to put the two 8-inch options on hold.

For all intents and purposes, the Acer Nitro Blaze handhelds feel like vaporware, but the new Predator portables could serve as a redemption arc. The alleged plan right now is for Arc G3 Extreme and Non-extreme flavors that use the same 14-core chipset as the Claw 8 EX AI+, but there's zero mention of potential pricing or other specs.

I'd take all these Intel Arc G3 rumors with the usual grain of salt, but if the new Acer handheld swaps out the Nitro branding for a Predator logo, it could be a worrying pricing clue. The latter is the laptop maker's "premium" brand reserved for gaming PC, laptops, and graphics cards with higher specs and features.

My personal fear is that, rather than focusing on challenging affordable devices like the Steam Deck OLED (still AWOL, FYI), or even the non-X ROG Xbox Ally, Acer will instead lean into the saturated premium portable market and create another $1,000 monster.

• More gaming handhelds at Best Buy
• Gaming handheld accessories at Amazon

Sticking with the classics? Swing by the best retro handhelds and best retro consoles for remakes, emulation systems, and more.

Intel has officially confirmed that Arc G3 chipsets are a thing. No, the tech giant didn't share any specs or mention any best gaming handheld contenders destined to use the Panther Lake APU. Instead, the company's vice president merely invoked its name in a sentence, so you'll need to wait until at least Computex for those MSI and Asus portables included in last week's wave of rumors.

In an interview with Intel's Robert Hallock, PCGH quizzed the VP on the company's future role in the gaming handheld scene. In response, Hallock specifically named the Arc G3 as the chipset teased last month while admitting that he's "not well versed in that product." The general manager then goes on to cite what he loves about Intel in regards to its tech versatility.

"What I do love about working at Intel is that we are a business where my team can work on a really nice desktop roadmap, another team can work on a really cool handheld roadmap," explains Hallock. "Another team can work on a really nice notebook gaming roadmap, and we can make unique products for all three of those markets."

The VP and General Manager cements his point by saying "I don't have to borrow a CPU and try to make it work in a different form factor," providing reassurance that its handheld chips are designed specifically with a specific portable use case in mind. "That's a unique capability Intel has in the market," boasts Hallock before expressing that he's "interested in seeing more handheld competition."

Even from that very vague acknowledgement that Arc G3 is a thing, it's clear that the chipset fully intends to rival AMD rivals like the Ryzen Z2 Extreme. Unfortunately, PCGH wasn't able to get Hallock to spill the beans on the APU beyond using its name, but he did allude to Panther Lake chips having a reassuringly long shelf life.

When asked whether "timing is critical" in the handheld market in the context of Pather Lake's late arrival to the handheld scene, Hallock confesses, "I actually don't work on Arc G3 all the time," but says "in general, as a comment about CPUs like that, CPUs that fit in smaller appliances, especially very small compact notebooks, the ones that are razor-razor thi or handhelds, those marketing life cycles are way longer than most desktop PC enthusiasts understand."

The example the VP provides focuses more on it taking longer to convert players to the aforementioned thin notebook systems compared to enthusiasts picking up the best CPU for gaming. But, even linking the idea of portable APUs having a longer shelf life is extremely reassuring, as while handhelds like the Steam Deck OLED are sticking with the one custom Ryzen APU for now, it feels like the premium side of things is pushing for yearly APU revisions with a traditional laptop-style rhythm.

Simply put, Intel's acknowledgement that players typically take more than a year to upgrade their handhelds is extremely reassuring. Yes, the MSI Claw 8 AI+ only just arrived with a Lunar Lake APU last year, so if you invested in that portable, seeing a new, punchier Panther Lake contender at Computex 2026 is going to be irritating. But, while we know nothing official about Arc G3's specs, it sounds like it'll pack enough power to throw punches against Ryzen rivals for much longer.

Previous reports by Videocards already named the Arc G3 and G3 Extreme before Intel, so this is really just official confirmation that the chipset exists. Early specs suggest the APUs will boast Arc B370 and Arc B390 graphics, respectively, along with support for LPDDR5X-8533 RAM. I'll save direct comparisons to its main rival, the Ryzen Z2 Extreme, for when the official specs land, but all signs point towards a worthy contender, albeit one that will likely make its way to pricey portables like a new MSI Claw and something by Asus that are out of reach for most players.

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

Already got Valve's portable? Swing by the best Steam Deck docks and enhance your hybrid desk setup. Alternatively, take a peek at the best retro handhelds for ways to emulate the classics on the go.

Intel is about to enter the best gaming handheld ring again, as Arc G3 and G3 Extreme portable PCs are apparently on the way. That's according to insider information acquired by Videocardz that suggests the Pather Lake devices will debut at Computex, but I'm not holding my breath for approachable price points.

I don't want to be a premium portable party pooper, especially since the MSI Claw 8 AI+ gave Intel a handheld scene second wind. Plus, if the Pather Lake models are packing Arc B380 and B360 graphics, they could take the fight to the likes of the ROG Xbox Ally X and its non-X sibling, all while offering better efficiency.

The new handheld chipset duo is expected to also represent a generation that will last until Q2 2027, suggesting Intel's already planning for a successor next year. That fuels my fears that the handheld scene will switch to a laptop-style life cycle, and it begs the question whether players will be put off investing in a portable PC if it will be outpaced by a new chip the following year.

As for power, the G3 handhelds will allegedly aim for 25W base TDP that ramps up to 65W and 80W in turbo mode, respectively. That latter figure sounds wild given that the max for the Ryzen Z2 Extreme is 60W, but it makes sense given the chip is expected to end up in premium MSI and OneXPlayer handhelds.

Perhaps I'm being cynical, and it's hard not to be when the Steam Deck OLED is AWOL, and rivals are trying to offer elevated performance for the same price range. However, it feels like handheld makers in the scene are trudging on without the majority of players who'd buy the devices if they were under $1,000. Just last week, the Lenovo Legion Go 2 jumped up to nearly $3,000, and it's starting to feel like the industry simply can't produce devices at around the same price as a Switch 2.

The saving grace here is that there are quite a few brands that could make use of Intel Arc G3 chipsets. Some of the additional names previously highlighted as partners by the tech giant include Acer, GPD, and even Microsoft, despite already being proverbially in bed with Asus, and that leaves some scope for different SKUs targeting affordable price points.

Out of the three, Acer feels more likely to try to make an "affordable" handheld, rivalling MSI's likely more lavish successor to the Claw 8 AI+. All we can really do is hope Computex spits out a handheld most players can realistically invest in, as the realm of portable PCs will otherwise be perpetually trapped at a premium party where few can afford to have fun.

• Gaming handhelds at Best Buy
• Steam Deck accessories at Amazon

Fancy playing classic capers instead? Swing by the best retro handhelds for emulation gadgets and more.

Intel's Arrow Lake refresh CPUs launched just four days ago, but their prices are already seeing increases as all sorts of tech pricing inflates. It's a particularly tumultuous time for gaming hardware. The AI-induced RAM shortages and SSD inflation are raging on, Sony has just introduced price hikes for the PS5, and now, it seems like the best CPUs for gaming are next on the docket.

One of the reasons I was so excited for Intel's new Core Ultra Plus desktop processors was for their value for money, but it seems that their dynamic pricing is already getting the better of them, less than a week into their shelf life. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus was pitched at $199 by Intel, but it's seeing a price tag of $219.99 at Newegg and $249 at Amazon.

The faster Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has it even worse - its MSRP is $299, but it's already sitting at $349 at Newegg, and $357 at Amazon at the time of writing. Based on estimates and rumors I reported on last week, it seems CPU pricing from all brands, and at all ends of the price spectrum, could be about to see price increases, as we've seen already in 2026 with the global RAM shortages.

AI-caused inflation is hardly ideal when a product has just launched, but if you were planning on grabbing one of the new Arrow Lake Refresh processors, I'd do it sooner rather than later to avoid any further price hikes.

Admittedly, it's a terrible time to shop for any gaming hardware. Thanks to AI infrastructure and data center construction, manufacturing demands are through the roof, which means a smaller supply of products for consumers, and pricing increases for all sorts of technology. We've already seen the PS5 getting more expensive in recent days, we've heard from Microsoft that the cost of the Xbox Series consoles is increasing, and even in the PC space, Valve is withholding its new Steam Frame and Steam Machine hardware despite an initial billing for early 2026 launches.

To be fair, it's easy to read into the price increases of these new Intel chips and see the doom of all future PC hardware. Things might not be that bleak in reality, as dynamic pricing is a depressingly standard practice in the PC market.

Intel's new CPUs aren't yet inflated to the same extent that the best graphics cards are this soon after a launch, so we're not in dire straits yet. Either way, if you were about to upgrade your CPU or PC to a new LGA1851-compatible chip anytime soon, now is safer than waiting to see if things get worse.

You can't yet get your hands on the cheapest "KF" (without a performance multiplier and internal graphics) models of Intel's new Core Ultra Plus CPUs, but some are available for pre-order. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is available and is sitting at the "correct" MSRP of $199 at Newegg.

It's also worth mentioning that the older-gen Intel Core Ultra 7 270K from the initial batch of Arrow Lake processors is still $100 more expensive than the newer 270K Plus model - even with these price increases. I haven't managed to test out the Plus variant yet, but by all accounts of early reviews, it offers faster performance for less money, so it's still a pretty good deal.

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

Since its launch last week, Crimson Desert has thrown up this message when PC gamers with an Intel Arc graphics card try to launch the game: "The graphics device is currently not supported". With that, the game hasn't been able to start, and it's caused outcry among gamers who aren't able to play one of the year's most anticipated games on their perfectly capable gaming PC.

Pearl Abyss didn't exactly seem like it was eager to support Intel Arc systems either, with one online FAQ on the studio's website asking if the game would be playable with this type of GPU said, "No, Crimson Desert currently does not support Intel Arc graphics cards," before directing players towards refund policies.

Seems pretty cut and dry, no? Pearl Abyss, for whatever reason, wasn't going to support one of the three biggest GPU manufacturers in its game. Thankfully, that seems to be changing, as the studio walked back on this on the game's Twitter (X) account:

It's a bit of an odd situation, especially when you take a statement Intel has provided about trying to work with Pearl Abyss until now:

"Getting games running smoothly is always a partnership between developers and hardware makers. Over the past several years, we’ve reached out to Pearl Abyss many times to help test, validate, and optimize support for Intel graphics, providing early hardware, drivers, and engineering resources across multiple generations," Intel told the press.

"We remain ready to assist Pearl Abyss however we can. For details on the choice not to enable Intel support at launch, please reach out directly to Pearl Abyss."

I'm sure there's a lot about the relationship between Intel and Pearl Abyss that we don't know about, but it's hard not to see from those statements that Pearl Abyss clearly misjudged how a lack of support for Intel components would harm its game.

It's not exactly the perfect, gold-standard evidence of what graphics cards are being used, but in the latest Steam Hardware Survey results taken from February 2026, 4.48% of users were reported to have Intel GPUs in their systems. Granted, that's nothing compared to Nvidia's 84.68% and AMD's 10.61%, but roughly 5% of Steam users is still a substantial amount of gamers to not support.

If there was planned support for Intel systems set for after launch, why wouldn't the FAQs explain that, instead of the pretty clear "no" that was posted until recently? Now, the answer to that question on Pearl Abyss's website has changed, reading similarly to the tweet that was published:

"We are currently working on compatibility and optimization support so that Crimson Desert can also be enjoyed on Intel Arc GPU systems. We are preparing to provide a smooth and stable gameplay experience, and we ask for your patience until the support update becomes available.

"We apologize for any confusion our previous FAQ wording regarding playability on Intel Arc GPUs may have caused. Please regard this as our latest official news on the subject."

Like I say, there's a lot that's unclear about why Intel Arc GPUs haven't seen support from the studio yet, but since the game's review scores weren't as high as expected and caused a drop in the studio's share price, the U-turn could be seen as an attempt to recoup good faith with gamers and investors.

As you'll imagine, the public outcry from Intel Arc users has been easily heard, and it's something I can relate to. My first gaming PC used an Acer Intel Arc A770, and although support has gotten a lot better since the early days of that card, it's still massively frustrating to see a "big" game just isn't supporting your budget-friendly components for seemingly no reason.

Hopefully, the support for Crimson Desert arrives sooner rather than later, but I imagine a fair few Arc users have already refunded the game thanks to that initial FAQs response.

For more on gaming PC components, check out the best CPUs for gaming, the best RAM for gaming, and the best SSDs for gaming.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not entirely surprised to hear Intel's XeSS 3 works on more than just Panther Lake chipsets, as support for B580 GPUs has already been confirmed. However, impatient fans have already sussed out how to get multi-Frame generation working on more devices ahead of schedule, and it could make all the difference in my never-ending quest to boost fps using the best gaming handheld options out there.

First shared to r/IntelArc by user Aggressive-Camel8166, a short clip shows off Multi-Frame Generation in Cyberpunk 2077 via a B580 GPU. A reply by onehoon reveals that to get XeSS 3 working, you apparently only have to extract two DLL files included with the latest driver update, then reinstall using the extracted folder. This means dabbling with tools that were previously exclusive to Nvidia's best graphics card contenders is now possible on Arc GPUs and even the MSI Claw 8 AI+ and other Intel-based handhelds.

The handheld scene has a funny relationship with AI upscaling tools, as even the punchy ROG Xbox Ally X is currently lacking the same tricks afforded to the latest GPUs. Yes, it can tap into AMD's FSR 3 and driver-level "Fluid Motion Frames" tech, and for what it's worth, the feature does provide a nice boost in many scenarios. But, having access to specific Multi-Frame Generation via XeSS 3 could help ramp up perceivable performance way beyond what is either natively possible or doable using AMD's current approach.

I don't have an Intel Arc GPU or an MSI handheld with a chipset to hand right now, so I'll need to report back on whether XeSS 3 makes a meaningful difference. I am particularly keen to see if switching Multi-Frame Generation on can help the Claw 8 AI+ outpace the Xbox Ally X without caveats like potential latency, artifacts, or glitchy visuals.

There's certainly a conversation to be had regarding whether tools like DLSS, FSR, and now XeSS are relying on "fake frames" to boost performance, and companies like Nvidia are trying to push for AI upscaling to become a norm. Yet, while handhelds arguably have the most to gain from using tools like Multi-Frame Generation due to their low specs, Intel is about to be the only company actively making use of the tech for portable PC purposes, even if fans are getting ahead of themselves with mods.

• More gaming handhelds at Amazon
• Intel Arc graphics cards at Amazon

Looking to play some oldies? Swing by the best retro handhelds and best retro consoles for emulation devices and more.

It's easy to forget Intel GPUs are in the best graphics card race, but new driver updates could help ARC models keep up with Nvidia. While the green team has been offering up Frame Generation since the RTX 40-series, XeSS is about to get Multi-Frame Generation tricks that should be similar to DLSS 4.5.

Available as part of driver package 32.0.101.8425/32.0.101.8362, Intel XeSS Multi-Frame Generation will seemingly be compatible with Battlemage and Alchemist GPUs. That means that, while the upgrade arrives as part of the Core Ultra Series 3 with built-in Intel Arc B390 and B370 launch, you should be able to boost fps using even cards like the Intel Arc A770 or even a gaming PC featuring its cheaper first-gen siblings.

In the driver update highlights, Intel explains that XeSS Multi-Frame Generation inserts "3 generated frames between two rendered frames, going from a 1:1 ratio to 3:1 for an ultra-smooth gameplay experience." Simply put, it'll function pretty much the same as the MFG included with cards like the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 and its counterparts, at least on paper.

Whether you think tools like DLSS 4.5 and XeSS 3 are using "fake frames" to boost fps or you welcome AI upscaling tools with open arms, the Intel Arc update will help the GPU range stand out. As of right now, AMD is resisting arming cards like the Radeon RX 9070 with Multi-Frame Generation, with David McAfee stating, “We will proceed very cautiously and listen to the gaming community and the reaction that they have," in an interview with Gizmodo.

In an ideal world, more players will come to Intel Arc GPUs for the Multi-Frame Gen and stay for the generally lower MSRPs and decent native performance. Of course, we'll need either a Battlemage or Celestial card that can take on Nvidia's top-end options, but if that happens, we'll be looking at a rival that is prepared to fight using AI upscaling spells.

The graphics card market has felt weird for a while now, with the largely unattainable RTX 5090 sitting at the top of the totem pole, and AMD doing anything but making a direct competitor. That's not necessarily a bad thing since it demonstrates that Team Red is focused on making cards players can actually afford, albeit with mid-range specs. While I suspect we will eventually get Radeon cards that trade blows with Nvidia's best once again in the future, the release of XeSS 3 is a sign that Intel Arc is still alive on the battlefield.

Ideally, we'll also see the best gaming handheld options with Intel chips inside gain MFG superpowers, but I'll check back in about that when it happens.

• More graphics cards at Amazon
• More graphics cards at Newegg

Building a system from scratch? Swing by the best CPU for gaming and the best RAM for our top component picks. You'll also want to check out the best Alienware gaming PC for out-of-this-world rig options.

The Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 was sitting proudly among the rest of this year's best gaming laptop contenders at CES last week. If you were early to the show, however, you might have snuck a peek at a very special model at the Intel booth. Teased late last year, a configuration of the 2026 G14 running (and only running) Intel Panther Lake processors was doing the rounds in the first few hours of the show, only to be shuffled away later on.

Asus was running its new G14 simply on the Intel Arc B390 integrated graphics system, rather than adding a separate Nvidia discrete card for full power. However, this looks to be a project cancelled at the last minute.

As first reported by Les Numeriques, the integrated graphics laptop was being proudly shown off at Intel's CES booth after Asus had already removed it from its own roster. The rig disappeared entirely shortly after. This was a machine first spotted on Geekbench halfway through last year, and then press-tested in December, so it definitely existed and certainly doesn't anymore.

It's not the first time Asus has experimented with integrated graphics. AMD's Ryzen AI Max 390, with Radeon 8050S graphics, sits front and center in the brand's Asus ROG Flow Z13 device. It's the best gaming tablet on the market because of this sheer power, and impressed with its punch and stability in testing.

Integrated graphics are coming our way, but the cancellation of the Intel Arc B390 Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 (however bungled it was at CES) shows we're not quite ready to say goodbye to discrete cards. Last year's Flow Z13 was the first time I had properly sat down with a modern integrated system and it took me by surprise.

This tablet was running everything from Indiana Jones and the Great Circle to Avowed without breaking a sweat, though while costing up to $2,799.99. The tablet form factor certainly benefits from the move to integrated graphics, and the best gaming handhelds are showing us how far these chips can run.

Gaming laptops are going to take a little more time to catch on, though. While it's unclear why the Intel-only Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 was abandoned, it's easy to see a future where more affordable gaming laptops become a reality again.

I track all the latest gaming laptop deals week to week, and one thing has become clear from the last year; it's a lot harder to find a decent RTX 50-Series machine around the $1,000 price tag than it was the RTX 40-Series. If integrated graphics can keep up with weaker discrete GPUs for a lot less cash, I'm in.

• See all gaming laptop deals at Best Buy

I'm running through all the other Asus gaming laptops on the market right now, and finding the best Razer laptops and best Alienware laptops for some different flavorings.

The rumored PS6 handheld won't be showing up any time soon, but apparently, Intel's Panther Lake chipsets provide a portable glimpse into the future. That's according to fresh rumors that Sony's PSP revival will sit somewhere between Ryzen Z2 Extreme and punchier Strix Halo options, all while running at just 15W.

The latest PS6 "Canis" performance rumors are fueled by leaker Kepler_L2, who suggests new Intel Panther Lake chips "might be a great ballpark estimate for how PS6 Handheld will perform/how PS5 games can be scaled down to very low TDP." (via Wccftech) The insider goes on to proclaim that "Z2E is too slow and Strix Halo is too fast, but PTL @ 30W should be very similar to Canis @ 15W" when it comes to comparative performance.

Simply put, if the rumor holds, the PS5 could rival the best gaming handheld contenders on the cards for 2026 at half the power. You could say that's a huge compliment for Intel's next-gen wave of portables, and may help the MSI Claw 8 AI+'s successor outpace the ROG Xbox Ally X, but there's admittedly some missing context here and factors that'll change up end performance.

For instance, while the PS6 handheld and Intel Panther Lake options might be comparable performance-wise, Sony's device will benefit from using an optimized operating system, not to mention the hardware should be designed around the needs of in-house developers and first-party games. Just like the Nintendo Switch 2, I suspect the device will heavily utilize AI upscaling tricks, which will potentially boost the frame rate beyond what current handheld gaming PCs can achieve.

Panther Lake handhelds will supposedly prowl onto the scene in mid-2026, and proper benchmarks will help provide a clearer comparative performance picture. The current rumors are based on guesstimates, namely that the PS6 handheld's chipset will boast a Zen 6 APU armed with RDNA 5 graphics, and those specs could change behind closed doors.

What I will say is that portable PCs and handheld consoles are completely different beasts. Picking up a Panther Lake handheld this year for potentially well over $1,000 isn't a hack for getting a PS6-level device early, and both devices will likely end up providing completely different experiences. Therefore, I'd focus on whether you're actually just looking to play a bunch of new games on the go using a versatile powerhouse ASAP, or if you want what could be a compact PS4 that, unlike the PlayStation Portal, isn't completely reliant on the internet.

• More gaming handhelds at Best Buy
• Gaming handheld accessories at Amazon

Looking to revisit the classics? Swing by the best retro consoles and best retro handhelds for emulation devices and more.

Hardware competitors Nvidia and Intel have announced a new and major partnership, with the two companies collaborating on "multiple generations" of hardware that will include consumer products as well as technology for data centers.

In a press release, Nvidia revealed plans to purchase $5 billion worth of Intel's common stock, "subject to customary closing conditions, including required regulatory approvals." This isn't a buyout or takeover, but it is a substantial investment.

Nvidia says its partnership with Intel will see a focus on "seamlessly connecting NVIDIA and Intel architectures using NVIDIA NVLink — integrating the strengths of NVIDIA’s AI and accelerated computing with Intel’s leading CPU technologies and x86 ecosystem to deliver cutting-edge solutions for customers."

For personal computing, the realm of us PC gaming mortals, Intel will "build and offer to the market" x86 SOCs (system-on-chips) that integrate Nvidia GPU chiplets.

"These new x86 RTX SOCs will power a wide range of PCs that demand integration of world-class CPUs and GPUs," Nvidia says. The pitch is about what you'd expect: "Fusing the world's best CPU and GPU to redefine the PC experience," per Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang's comments at a press conference.

The folks constructing data centers, meanwhile, can expect Intel to build "NVIDIA-custom x86 CPUs that NVIDIA will integrate into its AI infrastructure platforms."

AI is, unsurprisingly, a recurring theme of the announcement. Huang argues "AI is powering a new industrial revolution and reinventing every layer of the computing stack." He calls this partnership "historic" and stresses it combines Nvidia's AI and "accelerated computing stack" with Intel's CPUs and "the vast x86 ecosystem," almost like peanut butter and jelly with a few slices of banana.

"We're going to become a very large customer of Intel CPUs," Huang said at a press conference today.

Similarly, Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan writes: "Intel’s leading data center and client computing platforms, combined with our process technology, manufacturing and advanced packaging capabilities, will complement NVIDIA’s AI and accelerated computing leadership to enable new breakthroughs for the industry."

Intel has been falling behind in several processor markets for years, and Nvidia has been banging the AI drum with both hands for some time as well, so in some ways this collaboration comes as no surprise. Just today, Huang argued "general purpose computing has reached its limits," again championing the benefits of accelerated hardware which he reckons "sparked the big bang of artificial intelligence."

This deal will give Intel a shot of investment and, seemingly, a seat on the train that Nvidia has ridden to reach millions of customers. Even so, the processor companies joining hands like this, on a Thursday afternoon, comes as a bit of a shock.

Asked about the $5 billion investment accompanying the partnership, Huang said it is an "incredible investment" and Nvidia is "delighted to be a shareholder," and said "the return on that investment is going to be fantastic."

"It just reflects how excited we are about this partnership," he said. I, too, have been known to drop $5 billion in my excitement.

Intel says "this is fine" to fallen stock prices, tells gamers they can get Battlefield 6 bundled with its hardware for no extra cost.

It's felt like Intel has been fighting an uphill battle for the last two years. It's faced instability issues that resulted in a PR crisis, it has enforced mass layoffs on more than one occasion, its long-awaited Arrow Lake processors didn't exactly restore good faith, and as if all of that trouble wasn't enough, its biggest rival, AMD, has been sweeping up all the glory in the gaming PC market. In a rather strange turn, news arrived this week that Intel has just handed over a 10% stake in itself to the US government.

No matter which way you look at this, it's weird, weird, dawn-of-cyberpunk times for a big tech company like Intel to be so closely tied to the Trump administration. Stock levels falling after the 9.9% deal was announced will tell you I'm not the only one taken aback. Amidst the burning room it's sitting in, however, Intel is saying "this is fine" and pointing gamers at a big shiny distraction. As a part of the Intel Gamer Days sale, you can get Battlefield 6 bundled in with any of Intel's most recent gaming processors if you purchase one between now and September 7.

There's nothing worse for a brand's reputation than a slow drip-feed of bad news, and that's exactly what Intel has had over the last few years. You do have to admire its consumer wing carrying on like everything is perfectly normal, however, and pulling out a bundled deal that is genuinely going to be of interest to a lot of gamers. A move like this is hardly going to restore faith with people who have been following the news, and I doubt it'll do much to combat falling share prices, but hey, "Battlefield 6 for free" is an alluring concept.

For those who have been out of the loop, Intel has been receiving money from the US government for a while now. First introduced by the Biden administration, the Chips Act was put in place mainly to help these large chip manufacturers like Intel, Micron, and others produce their parts in the US, and prevent as many supply chain shortages as we saw during the global pandemic.

Trump's administration has been mostly critical of this act since coming into his second term, but Trump himself has now changed his tune, saying that if the US government is going to grant subsidies to these companies, the taxpayer should see a return on that investment.

That was at the start of the week, and since announcing that his government was going to seek a stake in Intel, the sale has now gone through. Interestingly, this sale may not even be legal, since apparently, cash from these subsidies was used in the purchase.

It's unlikely that for a company so big, the announcement of a Battlefield 6 bundle was at all coordinated. This has likely been in the works for a little while on the consumer side, and it just so happens that things in the C-suite have moved quicker than anyone expected. Still, what a way to misdirect one of your largest audience segments during a massive change in share holdings.

In total fairness, I do think this is a pretty good promotion that gamers should make the most of, despite all the larger Intel news this week. The range on offer is pretty impressive, and spans most of the Raptor Lake refresh products, as well as the Arrow Lake products like the Intel Core Ultra 7.

That said, I'd also issue a word of caution. We have no idea how Intel or the government plans on using this new partnership going forward, so whether you're team AMD or Intel, I'd try and keep up with the news from here on in.

• Shop the whole Battlefield 6 bundle
• Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 pre-order: $69.99 at Amazon
• AMD's best CPU: $359 at Amazon

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

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.

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.

The Intel Core Ultra launch, for Intel, has been rough. When the series finally landed on desktops late last year, including the Core Ultra 7 265K, it was undercooked, unoptimized, and generally disappointing. Performance, whether that was multi-core or single-core, gaming or rendering, unabashedly sucked, no matter what chip you got. Thanks to a mix of poor firmware, a lack of Windows resource integration, and early BIOS, the Core Ultra series didn't hit the ground running particularly hard, struggling to compete even with the then-nerfed 14th generation of Intel CPUs that had launched well over a year prior.

The entire lineup was effectively a massive shake-up in how Intel designed and created its chips up until that point. Processor designs that had been touted as some of the best CPUs out there were wantonly abandoned and thrown aside in search of a new design that would give Team Blue an advantage over AMD's recent success with the subsequent 7000 series, particularly its X3D lineup. In essence, the first-generation Ultra series, the 100 line, was confined to laptops only as a hyper-efficient, low-power alternative to Arm and Qualcomm's Snapdragon line. It was a minor success and inevitably became the blueprint for the Core Ultra 200 range on desktop.

After seven months, the question then has to be, "Is Intel's Core Ultra 7 265K a good bargain today?", particularly given everything that went on. It's certainly seen price drops since then, that's for sure (the Ultra 7 is now just $299/£239, down from its launch price of $400/£339), and both BIOS and Windows are now more mature, fully capable of taking advantage of Intel's new architecture. But given how poor that initial launch was, it's fair to say we're all still a little skeptical of Intel's redesign, and with good reason.

Specs & Features

If you’re someone who invested in an Intel motherboard and processor in the last three or four years, you might be asking why the brand chose to uproot its existing CPU socket for its latest generation. Well, by the end of 2023, Intel had kinda pushed its Performance/Efficient design to its limits. The style that was found in the 12th, 13th, and 14th gen chips. You could see it too; the 14th gen, itself really more of a refresh of the 13 series, the 14900K nothing more than a ramped-up 13900K, regularly ran at 100 degrees under load, no matter the cooling or the chip, pushing subsequent clock speeds all the way up to 6GHz and above as a result. All in an attempt to compete with AMD.

It wasn't without fault, however, and after numerous stability issues and motherboard manufacturer shenanigans came to light, in an effort to quell the (rightly justified) media and consumer uproar, Intel enforced a bevy of BIOS updates and microcode changes to reduce the amount of power being drawn by the chips. This quelled most of the issues, as it prevented the Raptor Lake products from permanently damaging themselves when in operation. That not only reduced temps (mildly) and increased stability, but it came at the cost of that top-tier launch performance, effectively invalidating most of those early reviews (my own included) and experiences in the process. In short, Intel was in the doghouse.

Then we got the Core Ultra lineup, and oh boy, the number of changes here was intense. We lost hyper-threading; Intel handed off the manufacturing to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and its 3nm process, it introduced an integrated NPU (neural processing unit used to accelerate AI calculations), and how it managed power delivery and clock speeds was wildly different compared to its predecessors. It's a chip that really should have been launched about 3-4 months later than it was, once the bugs had been ironed out, its BIOS had been developed, and Windows had been optimized for it. Sticking to release timelines and shareholder demands sometimes isn't the best play.

Although the CPU architecture has seen the biggest amount of change from a generational standpoint, the top-line specs aren't that radically different between the two generations. If you compare the 14700K to the Core Ultra 7 265K, they're impressively similar.

Both feature eight Performance cores, and 12 Efficiency cores. Both have remarkably similar clock speeds (5.5 GHz for the Ultra 7 265K and 5.6 GHz for the 14700K), and both feature rather tight L3 cache sizing as well (or smart caching), with the 7 265K touting 30 MB versus the 14700K's 33 MB.

The biggest and most notable difference is that lack of hyper-threading or simultaneous multi-threading across the range. Something that for the longest time has been a staple of Intel's Performance cores, even pre-dating the P/E split.the

In essence, you can think of hyperthreading like an arm. Each core is a mouth that needs feeding, and by default, it has one arm or thread that can grab that food from the relevant resources. What hyperthreading does is add an extra arm into the equation; it effectively simulates a virtual core to the operating system. Although it doesn't necessarily equate to a direct doubling of performance, it generally ensures that the physical core, or mouth, can continually be fed with instructions rather than sitting there idly, waiting for that next resource or instruction to come to it.

It does, however, require more power to operate like that, and the Core Ultra architecture is designed first and foremost around efficiency and reduced latency above all else. On the surface, that looks incredibly bad, as the 14700K touts a whopping 28 threads, versus the Ultra 7's meager 20, but not all is as it first appears. Certainly, in regard to performance.

Launch pricing between the two remained fairly consistent as well, despite inflationary pressures (or because of), with the 14700K sitting pretty at $410 / £400 back in October of 2023 and the 265K arriving at $400 / £340 in October 2024. There's a catch there, though, and that's the socket. Namely, if you want one of the latest Core Ultra lines, you inevitably have to invest in a new motherboard as well, as it is only compatible with LGA 1851 sockets, not the older LGA 1700 sockets common across the 12th, 13th, and 14th gen chips.

Intel really has struggled to shift these CPUs since their launch, though, and the debut RRP prices have fallen dramatically as a result, as it tries to encourage consumers away from its 14th-gen lineup onto the newer chips. You can currently pick up an Ultra 7 265K (at time of writing) for a staggeringly low $299 or £239, whereas the 14700K is only available at $336 or £297, as it approaches end of life.

Performance

So then, the good news is I've spent the last few weeks re-benchmarking and testing as many modern CPUs as I can get my hands on in a fairly hefty testbed, including the Core Ultra 7 265K. The situation for Intel and this new lineup, certainly since I first used it back in October, has improved dramatically. Although there are some caveats to that statement.

As for rendering performance, Cinebench multi-core and single-core scores are far, far, far better than they were way back when. I still have the results from when I initially tested the Core Ultra 9 in Cinebench 2024, and that was clocking in numbers of 98 points in the single-core and 2,252 in multi-core. Comparatively, the Ultra 7 265K today managed 1,938 points in multi-core and 128 in the single-core test. Albeit with four fewer cores and a 200 MHz drop in clock speed. Not too shabby.

Compared to last gen, those numbers are admittedly less impressive, however. The 14700K managed 124 points in single-core and 1,834 in multi-core. That's a 3% improvement on single-core and 6% on multi-core, which is less than stellar. General clock speed was far lower too, with the 14700K tapping out at 5,586 MHz and the Ultra 7 at exactly 5,500MHz. Although it's worth noting that clock speed alone (particularly when transitioning architectures and manufacturing size) often isn't a good indicator of performance. Plus, the Ultra 7 doesn't have hyperthreading either, so performance per thread here is kinda through the roof in a lot of ways.

In Blender, however, the results were far less impressive, with the 14700K winning out by two points in the CPU test and 33 points in the GPU test utilizing Junkyard.

And then we get to gaming, and oh boy, is there a lot to cover here. For my gaming tests, I ran a total of three different mainstream high-end titles across the three key resolutions: 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, on the Ultra preset with a few tweaks here and there. The games being, Total War: Warhammer 3 with the Mirror of Madness benchmark, Cyberpunk 2077 with DLSS "Quality" and MFG x2 enabled, and Final Fantasy XIV's Dawntrail benchmark with FSR enabled.

Traditionally, the higher the frame rate, the more CPU-bound the game becomes as it has to process more frames that the graphics card generates, and as such, 1080p generally tends to be where you'll find the greatest difference in CPU performance. If you're big into esports titles or high-fps games like that and game in a competitive environment, then a good CPU can make or break your championship runs.

The bad news is that the Core Ultra 7 kinda underperformed at that resolution compared to its predecessor. In fact, even the Core i5-14600K outperformed it here, under the same conditions. On average across all three titles at 1080p, the Ultra 7 landed a total average of 157.14 fps, the 14700K 162.42, and the Core i5-14600K 160 exactly. Final Fantasy in particular suffered under the Core Ultra line more so than Total War or Cyberpunk, and that's a real issue, given how old these chips are.

Still, if I'm honest, although it is objectively "worse" than those two chips, it's only by a relatively small margin, 3% to be exact. The likelihood of that being noticeable in-game to absolutely everyone is going to be slim, particularly at lower frame rates. Where this will be more pronounced, however, is for those dabbling in games at the 200-300 fps range. If you've got one of the best gaming monitors out there and can handle and generate those kinds of numbers, plus esports titles are on the horizon for you, you're going to want to steer clear.

What is more noticeable, though, is just how much more efficient the Ultra 7 is. Side-by-side with the 14700K, we're talking about a drop in power draw of anywhere between 60 to 95 W, dependent on the workload. Equally, average temperatures are ridiculously low by comparison. In-game, this chip happily sits around the 50-degree mark versus 60-70 for the 14700K, and similarly, under computational load, those temp drops were 15 or 16 degrees lower as well. It's seriously efficient, and although power draw isn't often a deal breaker when looking at CPUs these days, those lower temps do help out a ton when it comes to maintaining higher clock speeds for longer in rendering tasks, especially compared to the thermal control of the Raptor Lake chips.

I'd also be remiss for not mentioning AMD here; both its X3D chips and standard X line produce some phenomenal competition right now. The 9900X in particular goes toe-to-toe with the Core Ultra 7 across the gaming spectrum, beating it on average frame rates everywhere but at 4K. It does require a bit more juice, and temps are around 10 °C higher, but that's a tantalizing alternative if you're fed up with Intel.

Should you buy the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K?

This is inevitably a tricky question to answer. On the surface, in isolation, the Core Ultra 7 265K is a good chip. It just is. With that price drop, access to a better chipset with more connectivity, lower power draw and temperatures, plus comparable performance to last gen in-game and out, it's well worth considering for your next gaming PC. Compared to the likes of the Core Ultra 9, that price drop makes it incredibly tantalizing.

Still, if you're after finding a chip that represents the best bang for the buck both for gaming and computational work, nothing, and I mean nothing, beats the Intel Core i5-14600K right now. Per frame-generated and score produced in Cinebench, it absolutely annihilates the competition on both sides of the aisle, particularly as you can grab it for just $200 or £191. It's perfect for those dabbling in creative pursuits on the side and focusing predominantly on gaming - especially if you're on a budget.

Monstrous little i5s aside, the Core Ultra 7 has come a long way since its inception, and if you are looking for a modern-day CPU, it's a comfortable pick. It's perhaps not the best, but a lot better than when it launched. Realistically, though, I'd highly recommend waiting for Intel's 300 series (which, at a guess, will likely launch in October of 2025). With that, we should see a far more refined variant on the Ultra line, hopefully one that's had the remaining bugs ironed out, with higher clock speeds, and if we're lucky, hyper-threading thrown back into the mix as well.

Hunting for more upgrades? Check out the best graphics cards, the best RAM for gaming, and the best computer speakers.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

Intel is allegedly gearing up to release a new next gen wave of ‘Battlemage’ graphics cards, and they might land amid the chaos of Black Friday. The Arc successor is set to be the tech giant’s second generation of GPUs, following the slow launch of cards using ‘Alchemist’ chips throughout the last two years

Just like Nvidia and AMD’s best graphics card contenders, Intel’s first GPU line-up released the final quarter of 2022. The Arc A770 arrived on October 11, but it took a while for the entire range of discrete and dedicated options to make it outside of China. Not to mention a range of driver issues originally caused a ruckus for players, with issues plagued gaming PC performance for early adopters. Thankfully, cards are now both widely available and feature pretty robust drivers due to ongoing support, and that might be why we’re finally hearing whispers about a successive generation.

According to a report by Computerbase, “industry circles” say that Intel Arc Battlemage graphics cards will land “before Black Friday.” That may sound a little vague considering the big sale takes place just after Thanksgiving, but it’s perhaps a nod that the line-up will emerge either early November or even late October. Opting for the latter would create somewhat of a launch pattern since Alchemist launched at the same time of year, and we know that GPU makers love sticking with a release date rhythm. 

The report backs up its Battlemage release date claim by stating that Intel wants to “take advantage of the strong sales season,” which makes sense given that many players hold off on buying parts until the big event. It’d also give the company a nice excuse to discount Alchemist cards and clear up stock, as last year’s bonanza slashed the range to record low prices. 

That said, Intel is once again potentially releasing its next gen GPUs dangerously close to the launch date of RTX 5000 cards, with rumours also pointing towards late 2024. I’d argue doing so is somewhat of a gamble, as the blue team’s offering could be drowned out by flagship noise generated by the ridiculous capabilities of something like an RTX 5090. On the flip side, Nvidia isn’t always great at having entry-level and mid-range options available early on in a generation, meaning Intel could convince some PC gamers on a budget to switch allegiances using shiny new cards.

Naturally, it’s worth taking these rumors with a grain of salt, especially since Intel hasn’t disclosed an official next gen release date. Funnily enough, Intel also apparently isn’t done with Alchemist yet, as the company just announced six new GPUs at Embedded World 2024. Since we’re talking about models for embedded systems, it’s safe to say you won’t be using one to run Steam games, but newcomers like the 7xxE range do offer up AI capabilities.

Should you wait for Intel Arc Battlemage graphics cards? 

With rumors of new Intel graphics cards brewing, those of you eyeing up cards like the Arc A770 are likely wondering if you should hold off. After all, we’re only four months into 2024, and waiting it out would effectively mean either using older parts or postponing any new build plans you may have. With that in mind, whether you should wait fully depends on whether you’d rather wait and see if your money will gain you new features and more performance compared to current models, with the latter being pretty much a given. 

Of course, the fact that the new rumors point towards GPUs arriving before Black Friday graphics card deals kick off is also worth keeping in mind. Even if you do wait, you’ll end up shopping for a new card at an optimal time of year. It’s hard to tell whether A770 and A750 stock will still be around to actually receive a discount, but if models are still available, they might end up cheaper than ever. Simply put, if you end up deciding that Battlemage cards aren’t worth the discount, their predecessors might be worth picking up based on price alone. 

In any case, if you’re not desperately in need of a graphics card right now, holding off until the end of the year will be beneficial. Intel’s range already offers up pretty respectable levels of performance for the money, but it does feel like November is going to be the golden month to pick up anything Intel GPU related.

Looking for a rig that's ready to go? Swing by the best Alienware gaming PC and best gaming laptop for complete builds. Alternatively, check out the best Steam Deck dock and turn Valve's handheld into a desktop hybrid.

Out of Intel’s 12th Gen CPU line-up, the i5-12400F remains a personal favorite. Sure, it’s only armed with six cores, and specs appear lacking on paper compared to newer options. However, I can attest to the fact that in most scenarios, this i5 Alder Lake chip can provide enough of a punch to support an RTX 4090 rig, and it’s currently super cheap thanks to Amazon’s Spring Sale.

If you wander over to Amazon right now, you’ll find that the Intel Core i5-12400F is down from $206.25 to $137.03, thanks to a 34% discount. If you happen to be in the UK, you’ll be able to grab an even better deal, as a chonky 43% discount has slashed the chip to just £107.99. That’s pretty respectable when you consider the fact that the newest equivalent, the i5-14400F, is going for $209.99, and while that is undeniably one of the best CPUs for gaming right now, the comparative gaming PC experience might not be as different as you’d think. 

As I’ve already touched on, I’ve spent quite a bit of time with the Intel Core i5-12400F, and it’s a surprisingly capable chip considering it’s not high-end. Arguably, you don't necessarily need a powerhouse processor for specifically playing games, especially in adventures that aren’t particularly CPU intensive. Your mileage can vary depending on genre, but from experience, you won’t experience dramatic fps differences using an older Alder Lake chip compared to a newer Raptor Lake model. 

US:

UK:

Should you buy the Intel Core i5-12400F? 

If you’re the type of player who likes to watch fps counters while you game, you’ll naturally feel inclined to pick up a top-end CPU. In the same vein, those of you who would rather splash out on DDR5 RAM will also be looking at fresh new parts with compatibility with the latest standards, which is completely understandable since that’s all part of the fun for enthusiasts.

That said, if you’re simply looking to put together a decent rig and save some change in the process, CPUs like the Intel Core i5-12400F are going to matter. Most of your Steam library is going to be happy so long as it has access to a fairly recent chipset, and a 12th Gen option like this is still absolutely considered new-ish in my book.

I mean, it's no slouch either, as it boasts a 4.40GHz boost clock, meaning general use will feel pretty snappy. If you’re serious about balancing specs and performance, you’re not going to pair the i5-12400F with the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090, even if I did personally commit that sin and noticed zero bottlenecking across my usual benchmark outings.

Simply put, the Intel Core i5-12400F is still a winner when it comes to entry-level and mid-range PC builds, and for under $140 (and just over £100 in the UK), this chip is going to do everything you need it to and then some. 

Looking for more parts? Check out the best RAM for gaming and the best SSD for gaming. If you'd prefer a machine that's ready to go, swing by the best Alienware gaming PC builds for a selection of high-end systems. 

We already know a second generation of Intel Arc graphics cards is coming, and a new CES 2024 interview suggests the tech giant is actually a step ahead. While a successor to the current ‘Alchemist’ line-up, dubbed ‘Battlemage’, is scheduled to arrive at some point in 2024, there’s a chance we’ll see an additional new wave of GPUs emerge soon after. As someone who hoped the blue team would properly disrupt the scene last year I’m excited at this prospect, and the extra competition could be the kick that AMD and Nvidia need.

The Intel Arc A770 is arguably one of the best graphics card options right now in terms of value, but the Alchemist line-up sticks to entry level. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as the scene is pretty top heavy when it comes to mid-range and high end GPUs, especially with new gen Nvidia shenanigans. However, Intel clearly has a battleplan, and if things go right, we may eventually end up with an Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 challenger, or at least a premium 4K contender that boasts better value for money.

Intel Fellow Tom Petersen provided an idea of what the company is cooking up in terms of graphics cards during a sit down chat with PC World at CES 2024. Touching on the next generation of GPUs, the ex Nvidia director says that “30% of our engineers are working on Battlemage,” but clarifies that those efforts are focusing on software. That’s down to the fact that, according to Petersen, “the hardware group is on the next thing.” 

Naturally, Petersen reiterates that he can’t properly delve into Battlemage, or the so-called “next thing” up Intel’s graphics sleeve. Still, if things stay on track, it should mean we’ll also see the company’s Celestial architecture show up in the not so distant future. The fact that Battlemage is already at the silicon stage, and the team is apparently working on the driver side of things, is also a promising sign, as it means the company will potentially avoid the teething problems experienced the first time around with Alchemist. 

As for the current roadmap, previous leaks by RedGamingTech suggest that Battlemage could start to roll out in Q2 2024, starting with the beefier cards. That’s not to say we’ll end up with anything that can take on the RTX 4090 this year, as the next cards will seemingly tap out at 225W. That said, if Celestial is set to show up at the start of 2025, we may end up with something with even more oomph, providing the company with access to the premium GPU ring.

So, why am I so excited? Well, Intel has established a track record for setting competitive MSRPs and offering as much “bang for buck” as possible. At the moment, that’s not going to matter to those of you looking to boost fps as high as possible at 4K, but that might all change if an alternative to premium AMD and Nvidia GPUs arrives for much less. We’re already seeing both parties gear up for that scenario, as you can now grab an Nvidia GeForce RTX 4080 Super for less than the original card, and AMD has made sure to cover all its mid-range bases with Radeon RX 7800 and RX 7700 options. 

Simply put, things could get real interesting in 2024 if everything pans out for Intel, and I’m keen to see what the company can achieve.

In Association with ROG Ally

Looking for a pre-assembled rig? Check out the best gaming PC builds for a collection of powerhouse systems. Alternatively, take a peek at the best gaming laptops and best gaming handhelds for machines you can take on the go.

Along with the official reveal of AMD's Ryzen 8000 Series desktop processors at CES 2024, the brand snuck in the news that it would be adding to its line-up of Ryzen 5000 Series processors. 

No, you read that correctly - the Ryzen 5000 Series that was released in 2020 is getting four new entries. The Ryzen 7 5700X3D, AMD Ryzen 7 5700, AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT, and AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT will all launch toward the end of this month and will sport Zen 3 architecture.

It's sort of like if Intel went back to its 11th Gen family (which doesn't use its current architecture) and decided to give it an update with four new processors. 

This decision is... weird. On one hand, I love the fact that AMD is allowing people who splashed out on one of the best gaming PCs in the chaotic pandemic era to net some upgrades without completely changing their rig from the motherboard up. Folks in 2020 paid a hell of a lot for their components, and since multiple generational updates have come out in the proceeding years, those buyers must feel a sting. 

More than that, I do slightly despise the fact that for so many PC gamers, an upgrade to the latest and greatest parts is all too often locked behind new motherboard architecture. Simply put, it means they'll have to fork out on a completely new set of components that, quite honestly, won't give them the performance boost that their sometimes obscene price tags should give them.

On the other hand, though, this isn't exactly a great move for current buyers. Older motherboards that use the 5000 series architecture aren't compatible with DDR5 RAM, future GPUs with PCIe Gen 5 support, or indeed Gen 5 SSDs. So, in buying one of these updated 5000 Series chips you're not exactly futureproofing yourself. It's a bit like if a cul-de-sac got one more house built at the bottom of it. There's now more to the street you live on, but it's still ultimately a dead-end. 

I suppose to assess true value, we need to look at some specs.

Luckily, these are all reasonably priced - and they'd have to be. The Ryzen 5000 processors have stayed on our best CPU for gaming list because of their extreme value for money. If you've been looking for a budget CPU since 2020, that wave of AMD chips has been the one to call.

But even then, these new entries don't make a whole lot of sense. The new Ryzen 7 57000X3D almost matches up with an Intel Core i5-12600K, but that Intel chip gives you access to DDR5 and two more cores. For its sins, the 12600K is often found around the same $250 asking price, and the same goes for an AMD Ryzen 7 7700, which is usually around the $300 mark. So again, why would you shoot yourself in the foot with a purchase of the new 5000 Series options?

Is AMD simply taking a jab at Intel here so that they both technically have three generations of desktop processors on the go at the same time?

Well, there is always the argument that these chips will be targeted at the people who already have compatible AMD systems and have no interest in moving to a DDR5-compatible machine yet. These new 5000 Series chips are built with Zen 3 architecture and fit into an AM4 motherboard socket. Depending on how old your PC is, this could bring an unexpected upgrade to a machine that previously seemed dead in the water. Imagine having a Ryzen 5 3500 CPU with Vega Graphics (which I used to use on a daily basis), and learning that there are now four brand new CPUs coming out that will provide you with a genuine upgrade. You wouldn't need to buy a whole new PC after all. 

For that reason, this is a generous and quite brilliant move by AMD. This is the sort of move that breeds brand loyalty - something that Intel has fallen short of in recent years. 

While upgrading to one of these four CPUs could offer some real value, it must be said that desktop CPUs do drop in price pretty quickly when new generations arrive. The new Ryzen 8000 Series CPUs are worth getting excited about, but they use the same motherboard slot as the 7000 Series, so those 2022 chips will likely come down to much more reasonable prices in no time at all. Is a new 5000 Series chip really worth committing to when DDR5 and Ryzen 7000 CPUs are getting cheaper by the day?

If you were to ask me how to upgrade an older rig from 2020 without changing motherboards, I'd say that your CPU is likely fine as it is - the biggest quality-of-life update will probably come from buying one of the newest, and one of the best graphics cards. Maybe for people putting together a new build from scratch, these refreshed CPUs might offer the best value for money, but even to those people, I'd recommend waiting for updated architecture to drop to your price range, because at least then you're giving yourself a bit more future-proofing.

All in all, it's great to see a celebration of the Ryzen 5000 Series. While AMD tries to see just how long it can keep its longevity going, I will applaud support for an aging motherboard socket. Without support for the best RAM for gaming though, I'm left questioning how long they'll be viable. While a certain subset of gamers might be happy with a small budget-buy upgrade, if they're going to spend money on components, I'd always recommend thinking as long-term as possible.

In Association with ROG Ally

For more, check out the best gaming laptop, the best computer speakers, and the best gaming monitor.

After months of rumored release dates, supposed spec leaks, and loads of speculation, Intel has finally announced the launch of its 14th Generation desktop processors. 

Dubbed "Raptor Lake Refresh" for a number of months now, this new wave of CPUs will use the same socket as 12th and 13th-generation chips and will be headed up by the Intel Core i9-14900K. The new flagship features 24 cores and 32 threads and is capable of reaching 6 GHz out of the box. 

These new Central Processing Units will be available from October 17 onward at retail outlets and partner sites. At the time of writing, I don't have access to pricing information for each new SKU, but when we learn this, I'll update you.

Besides the new i9, the 14th Generation is made up of six new unlocked processors at launch, and Intel has emphasized that they have been designed to be the best CPUs for gaming on the market. 

The Intel Core i7-14700K will feature 20 cores and 28 threads, which gives it a boost of four more E-Cores (efficiency cores) than the Intel Core i7-13700K, which GamesRadar+ reviewed fairly recently. 

Intel's Extreme Tuning Utility now includes a new AI-assist feature for certain Raptor Lake Refresh chips, which will let folks have access to AI-guided one-click overclocking if they have a compatible processor in their gaming PC.

It is important to note that the new processors won't feature the recently revealed Meteor Lake architecture, since that's currently reserved for a new wave of mobile CPUs. Instead, this generation will use the Hybrid Architecture that combines the use of Performance cores and the aforementioned E-Cores. As the "Refresh" in Raptor Lake Refresh might suggest, this is the architecture found in both 12th and 13th Generations.

According to Intel, 14th Gen processors can offer up to a 23% boost in gaming performance compared to "leading competitor processors" (I wonder who that could be referring to). Supposedly, this is mainly due to a new feature called "Intel Application Optimization" (APO) that improves the efficiency of thread dedication and scheduling.

The press release we received does state in its small print that this 23% boost figure was measured from FPS recorded in Starfield while using the brand new i9 compared to a Ryzen 7950X3D.

It's unclear how many of these extra features the new i5 CPUs will get, though. The Intel Core i5-13600K didn't have access to Intel's Turbo Max 3.0 Like the i7 or 9, for example.

In more practical terms, the 14th Generation Intel processors support Wi-Fi 6/6E, Bluetooth 5.3, Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 5.4, and Thunderbolt 4 and 5.

Some of you may note that this news hasn't adopted Intel's new branding it announced a few months back. This new "Ultra" naming convention that drops the "i" lettering will be reserved for Meteor Lake, and presumably new generations that aren't a "refresh". 

Why I'm excited about Raptor Lake Refresh

In all honesty, I'm not even that excited for a new generation of CPUs. We've only just gotten around to reviewing the flagship 13th Gen processors, and frankly, they're absurdly powerful as it is. A 20-something percent boost is always going to be tantalizing for the enthusiasts who need to run the top specs, don't get me wrong, but the main reason I'm actually excited is because of the impact this will have on 12th and 13th Generation models.

I review the best RAM for gaming as well as CPUs, and as someone who has been waiting for DDR5 to become the dominant force for a good while now, I can't help but get a sense this is a big step toward making that happen. 

A big argument for people not upgrading to a DDR5 system is that it requires a new motherboard, a new CPU, and finally the new RAM. Since a combination of all three that are compatible with Gen 5 speeds have a tendency to add up to a small fortune, it's very exciting that we'll get a third generation of Intel CPU that can all make use of the same motherboard socket. 

With Black Friday CPU deals coming up, I'm actually getting fairly excited about what might be on offer. With the Prime Day PC deals that we saw just a week ago showing that 13th Gen prebuilt gaming PCs, and of course, the processors themselves are starting to get more affordable, I was already pretty hopeful about discounts this November. 

Now, with a brand new wave of flagships, the prices of Intel's Alder Lake and Raptor Lake SKUs can relax, and suddenly, more of you will be able to make the leap to newer PC specs without it costing you an arm and leg. 

Of course, a motherboard, a processor, and RAM might still be a fairly chonky investment, but even if you assemble these parts over time, they'll now set you back way less than they did six months ago. 

For more PC content, take a look at the best graphics cards, the best Alienware gaming PC, and the best PC cases.

As I sit down to review the 13th Gen Intel Core i7-13700K, Intel's 2023 Innovation conference is being held in San Jose. While we haven't yet heard anything about the "Raptor Lake Refresh" wave of desktop processors that's slated to release before the end of the year, I can't help but wonder if it'll help or hurt the current i7. 

The i7-13700K is coming up on its first birthday, but its price has remained pretty stubborn. With Black Friday on the horizon and a refreshed set of Intel CPUs set to arrive soon though, we can only hope that Intel's current best CPUs for gaming start to get cheaper. After all, AMD managed to scoop up so much of the market by pricing things more fairly, along with finding some excellent performance. 

A new i7 that's rumored to gain about a 3-5% performance boost will no doubt drive the price of the current model down, but what if the performance boost is more substantial? And what if Intel embraces the undercutting strategy and chooses to make its next chips more affordable? Intel's new Meteor Lake architecture for mobile processors seems to point to a bold new direction for the brand, so it isn't impossible that a newer model makes this little i7 feel redundant.

For circa $400 /£390, a 13700K might not be a tempting prospect if you're looking to upgrade from an older-generation mid-ranger. If you're finally getting around to a DDR5 gaming PC, or you're comparing prices with AMD, this poor i7 - as powerful as it is - isn't the belle of the ball. When you then take into account how great a 13th Gen i5 is for cheaper, it's actually quite difficult to know who to recommend a 13700K to at the moment. 

That feels like a bizarre thing to say, because this CPU is a total powerhouse.

Specs and Features

I won't dwell on the aesthetics of the 13th Gen i7, because there just isn't much to talk about. The handy gold triangle is in the bottom left corner to assist you with installation, and the appropriate socket for this chip is the LGA1700. That means if you're coming from any of the 12th Gen chips, you're not going to need a new motherboard, but anything older, and you'll need to search for the beginnings of a new rig. 

The 13700K has 16 cores - only two more than the i5. These are made up of 8 performance cores and 8 efficiency cores. In terms of threads running through these cores, you have 24 - four more than the i5. 

If you're not clued up on what those things actually are (which is totally fine, the world of CPU architecture is very capable of making brains itch), I'll use my go-to analogy. Picture a factory with 16 workers manning 24 conveyor belts of products going in and out. If the workers are cores and their conveyors threads, it essentially means those workers have so many routes to ship out their newly made products and it's highly, highly unlikely that any of those conveyor belts are going to get jammed up. Even if one does, there are 23 others to use.

I think the performance boosts below should be the main factor you use to decide, but it's worth noting that for the almost $100 price bump from the i5, you're only getting two more cores and four more threads here. To me, that isn't too much extra headroom for the money, but then again the latest i5 is a little beast.

One thing this i7 has gotten a lot of praise for is its ability to cater to both DDR4 and DDR5, so even if you don't have the best RAM for gaming on the market, this CPU is still going to be viable to you. Another bonus is that you'll also get a fancy 13th Gen feature called Turbo Max 3.0, which identifies your processor's more efficient cores and goes to them first when you're giving it lots to deal with.

The 13700K does have integrated graphics, which you can tell by the slightly confusing serial numbers Intel uses. Intel does have a new naming convention we're bound to start using later in the year, but for older chips, if you see a "K" at the end of the serial number, it has integrated graphics and an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. If you go for a cheaper version with a "KF" at the end of it, you won't get any integrated graphics, although you will get the multiplier. I haven't tested the integrated graphics on board here, but if it's heavy PC gaming you plan to do, we'd always recommend one of the best graphics cards anyway.

Performance

The 13th Gen i7 is now our testing rig's processor after we upgraded from the 12th Gen i7. That means I've been using it for RAM testing for the last few months, as well as benchmarking for the best SSDs for gaming and days of general work on it. As you might expect, I haven't run into any trouble while using it.

I mean what I said in my review of the 13th Gen i5 - for the majority of people these days, an i7 or an i9 is overdoing it. Even if you have 40 Chrome tabs open while you work, you're running a VPN, doing content creation, and have music playing in the background, an i5 can handle all of that without losing its breath. As you can imagine, the extra allowance of cores and threads you have in the i7 gives you that bit of extra headroom, but in my eyes, the i7 didn't feel any faster than the i5 during general work and productivity. 

But of course, we aren't just reviewing this processor as something for general work. Gaming efficiency will be the top priority for most of you reading, so let me put this simply: the 13700K is an excellent CPU for gaming, and you're not going to run into any bottlenecks with this in your rig, even if you're running an RTX 4090 or AMD Radeon RX 7900XTX. But as you'll hear me repeat throughout this review, the same goes for a 13600K.

Hell, my colleague Phil has been running a 12th Gen i5 for a while now, even when testing the 4090, the 4080, and every other GPU they can get their hands on. You just aren't going to run into performance troubles with a modern i5, which almost spits in the face of the more noticeable boosts you'll see from this i7 in the tables below. 

Our go-to testing games for CPUs are things that will give them lots of simulation work to keep track of. Games like Cities Skylines and Total War Warhammer 3 do just that, so here are some performance stats with those games running at 1080p, ultra settings. Our GPU here is our testing rig's RTX 3050. While the GPU we used in the i5 tests (Acer's Predator Intel Arc A770) had a much beefier 16GB of VRAM, the more powerful processor had a little less help here with 8GB. 

In Total War, we used the game's included benchmarking tests, and with Cities Skylines we tracked metrics in some of the most heavily populated community scenarios. 

Comparing these to our benchmarks with the 13600K, you will be able to notice some wins for the i7. Keep in mind though, that these CPUs were tested in different rigs, so our figures won't give you a direct comparison. Regardless, it's plain to see that there are consistently higher numbers with the i7. I'll let you decide if they're high enough to warrant nearly an extra $100 on your purchase, however. The biggest leaps here come from Total War's benchmarking frame rates, with the i7 and RTX 3050 combo scoring consistently higher numbers, particularly with the Mirrors of Madness test.

What's quite surprising to me is that the i5 was hotter than the i7 during these in-game tests, reaching a maximum peak of 61 degrees across both games. This could be due to the AIO cooler we have in our testing PC completely outgunning the airflow of my Corsair 2000D Airflow RGB chassis - this is likely given my build is a small-form-factor one. Particularly when it comes to voltages, the i7 is noticeably higher across the board, with the i5's peak voltage reading under 1.29, and the i7 comfortably sitting over the 1.30 mark. 

Something I think bolsters my argument that the i5 is better value is the percentage of CPU usage during these tests. Yes, the i5 did reach a peak of 12% use when running Total War's campaign benchmark, which is trounced by the i7's peak of 5% in the same test. Personally, I think both processors are ridiculous in this regard - Total War's benchmarks are designed to make components sweat, and for either to not go above 15% shows you just what type of technology we're dealing with here. 

I would like to add though, that a peak of 12% is still utterly ludicrous. Yes, a peak of 5% is better (there's no denying that) but again, is 12% usage really going to convince you to spend that extra money?

With industry-standard benchmarking, the story is much the same, although my god I hope you're ready for i9 temperatures. When I reviewed the Acer Predator Orion 7000 (2023), I was shocked to see the unlocked i9 reach actual boiling point so often. I accepted it though, because it was an i9. Smash cut to benchmarking this 13700K, and I was gobsmacked to see our testing rig not able to keep its temperatures down. 

For these, forget what I said about the i5's temperatures during in-game tests. The 13600K didn't break 90°C in these, but the i7 was pushing 100°C consistently. Now, you're hardly ever going to find games or content creation tasks that will put your CPU under as much pressure as Cinebench and Blender, and with an ambient temperature of around 40°C, I wouldn't say it's anything to worry about. On the other hand, if efficiency is a priority for you and you don't want a component upgrade contributing to higher energy bills, it's yet another reason to pull the trigger on the i5 instead. 

Should you buy the Intel Core i7 13700K?

Overall, performance from the 13th Gen Intel Core i7 is excellent. If you can put up with higher voltages and have both the build and the coolers to manage its temperatures, you're going to be fine. In gaming, you're getting a CPU that's capable of playing anything contemporary here, and you aren't ever going to need to worry about bottlenecks with other components, particularly high-end GPUs. 

Here's the catch: you can apply all of those statements to the i5-13600K, still get a top-notch CPU for your desktop, and spend less money. There's extra headroom to be had with the i7, but do you really need it? More importantly, is the extra headroom worth the money?

I started this review off by saying I wasn't sure who to recommend the i7-13700K to, but to finish, let me flip that statement on its head. This is a processor that's easy to recommend to anyone because it's brilliant, but I think anyone considering it should think really carefully about whether or not they'll actually need it. 

If you're a streamer, content creator, 3D artist, or anyone else who needs that extra headroom for efficiency, creativity, or work, then sure - go for the i7. If you're a gamer looking for something to carry you through the next 3 to 5 years of new titles, an i5 is all you'll need.

How we tested the 13th Gen Intel Core i7-13700K

The 13th Gen Intel Core i7 has been our testing rig's CPU for the past few months. It's carried me through plenty of RAM and SSD testing in that time and has been used in plenty of gaming and productivity sessions.

For this review, I used Cinebench, Blender, and ICUE software to take industry-standard benchmarking figures and record metrics for evaluation. In terms of gaming, I used Total War Warhammer III's benchmarking tests, as well as some of the most strenuous scenarios made by the Cities Skylines community. I've also tested this CPU's clock speeds by doing RAM tests with it, playing around with XMP profiles, and mostly running at 6000MHz and above.

For more on the ways we test the latest PC components, take a look at our Hardware Policy.

For more on gaming PC hardware, check out our thoughts on the best Alienware gaming PCs, the best PC cases, and the best computer speakers.

It seems the latest Intel Arc driver update has caused an array of unintended issues with the Acer Predator BiFrost model of the A770 GPU. In an attempt to add more stable support for Starfield's launch last week, Intel sent out two updates to the A770 in late August/early September. While these have had mixed results for A770 cards trying to play the game, it seems to have caused inadvertent problems for the 16GB Acer version.

The list of issues includes disruption to the way the graphics card's fans operate, causing them to whir up in a pulsing rhythm every few seconds. For many, this only seems to be fixable by setting a higher manual percentage value on the fan outputs, frustrating many owners into more noise and higher power usage.

This issue seems to be caused by an inability of Acer's fans to operate at lower percentages. One Reddit poster said, "The fan curve from Predator Bifrost starts at 20% since this card doesn't have a low power mode, when the step in the fan curve is below 30%, the fan will go to 0%, for this to stop, you need to set a custom fan curve or a fixed one with a value above 30%."

Although a GitHUB ticket made by Acer A770 users suggested using DDU software to revert the driver back to an older version, some are finding the frustrating fan behavior persists after this.

From the looks of that ticket, the issue seems to be fairly widespread, with one Intel engineer in the thread saying "This issue is one of the top priorities for our dev teams, they are working on this as we speak. We understand the frustration this causes, but rest assured we share and push all your comments to our dev teams."

Folks with the Acer Predator BiFrost Intel Arc A770 (myself included) have also reported problems when trying to export or render video. In many cases, this causes an entire gaming PC to freeze, or in better cases, a much slower export process.

Although unconfirmed, it would appear these issues are the result of a new Firmware update being lumped into the driver update - something you couldn't opt out of if you were an A770 user who just wanted the latest drivers for playing Starfield. 

One user, who cited fan and video rendering issues, wrote: "I am severely pissed about the fact that I couldn't opt out of the FIRMWARE update. I only wanted a driver update. Is anyone at Intel going to buy me a new functioning card since the firmware ruined it and I can't work anymore?"

To add to the frustrations, one Intel Customer Support Technician has replied to a forum thread asking users to "Please note that, since you have an Acer Bifrost card, you should check with your manufacturer and using the driver and firmware updates provided by them to avoid potential installation incompatibilities."

Despite this customer support technician detailing the slight differences in driver software between manufacturers, one disgruntled user added that "ACER has one driver listed and that is over 6 months old. Users should be applying Intel ARC drivers as recommended."

Late last week, Bethesda also candidly stated that the flagship Intel graphics card doesn't meet Starfield's system requirements, despite being over three years younger than the minimum recommended boards for the game from both Nvidia and AMD. As it turns out, these issues may not have anything to do with your hardware choices, as some players online have discovered issues with Starfield optimization on PC.

Starfield performance woes haven't plagued the game's launch, but they do seem to be fairly widespread, with many players being unable to even launch the game on PC - no matter their hardware specs.

Both Intel and Acer are yet to put out an official statement about the A770's firmware update causing issues, although it has been spotted across multiple forums that a fix is supposedly in the works. If you're currently suffering from similar issues with your Intel Arc A770, you can add your thoughts to the forum threads linked above.

Want more PC components for playing Starfield? Check out the best CPU for gaming, the best RAM for gaming, and the best SSD for gaming.

The Nvidia GTX 1660 released back in 2019, but Valve’s latest Steam Hardware Survey figures suggest people are still buying the graphics card. Rather than necessarily jumping from lower spec favorites like the GTX 1650 to the new RTX 4060, players appear to be sticking with the GTX line of GPUs for the most part.

I’m hesitant to call the Nvidia GTX 1660 one of the best graphics cards around, but its price makes it a top option for budget gaming PC builders. That said, I’d be careful when shopping around for one on Amazon, as while you can snag one for as little as $165.99, most of the cheaper options are by brands I’ve never heard of. Don’t get me wrong, Asus, MSI, and Zotax will also hook you up, but pricing is what makes the apparent shift towards the GTX card in 2023 quite interesting.

According to Steam Hardware Survey results for June, the number of GTX 1660 GPU users on the platform jumped by 1.82%. That might not sound like much, but even under 2% of the service’s 120 million monthly users is a pretty big figure. Not to mention that increases across every other popular graphics card failed to see usage increases above 1%, with the Steam Deck Van Gogh APU coming in second. 

It’s needless to say that the Nvidia GTX 1660 is one of the cheapest graphics cards still on the market, and it’s still capable of a lot today. However, the new PC games are more demanding than ever, and you won’t find the card on many system requirements lists in 2023. Not to mention it lacks any sort of AI upscaling support, and while you might not like the fact, features like Nvidia DLSS are a godsend if you’re trying to run new releases on entry-level hardware. 

Of course, Nvidia would also prefer you to opt for something with DLSS compatibility, and the RTX 4060 is designed to be the GPU you'd upgrade to if you've still got a GTX 1660. At the moment, it feels like players aren't wandering down that path when it's time to change GPUs, and that could be a bad sign for the entry-level Lovelace card. 

Should you buy a GTX 1660 in 2023?

I'm hesitant to advise against buying a GTX 1660 in 2023 outright, but I'd strongly suggest taking prices across the board into consideration. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying I think you pay $100 more for an RTX 3060, and while you can get an RTX 4060 for $299, it’s still a lot to spend on a budget build. Price is undeniably a strong reason to still pick up a GTX 1660, but if it were me building a cheap rig in 2023, I’d consider an Intel Arc graphics card instead.

For $219.99, you can grab an Intel Arc A750 with 8GB VRAM on Amazon, and it should fare better at running upcoming games like Starfield. The blue team’s debut card initially suffered from quirky drivers at launch, but the Alchemist has gone from strength to strength since it arrived last year. Sure, it’s still $50 more expensive than the cheapest GTX 1660 cards, but there’s a chance you’ll find yourself itching to upgrade again in the near future if you opt for the 2019 card.

Before any entry-level players reach for their pitchforks, I’m not trying to dunk on the GTX 1660, nor am I saying it’s a bad GPU. I guess if anything, I’m trying to highlight the price differences between the four year old card and newer options out there, as there isn’t as much of a gap as you’d think. If you’re able to get one cheap enough, and can avoid questionable unknown brands or cards that have had a hard life, then by all means pick one up. Otherwise, I’d encourage you to consider newer options, especially if they’ve got what it takes to survive in the minimum requirements trenches in 2023. 

Looking for a prebuild? Check out the best Alienware gaming PCs and pick up an Aurora rig. Alternatively, check out our best gaming laptop picks that'll help you take your Steam library on the go. 

I’ve been putting together gaming PCs for over a decade, and most of my builds feature an Intel i5 CPU. Don’t get me wrong, popping a cutting edge chip into your rig comes with benefits, but it's far from being a necessity when it comes to running games. With that in mind, I want to share with you this Intel Core i5-12400F deal, as it’s both my current favorite processor and available for under $150 right now. 

Over at Amazon, you can grab the Intel Core i5-12400F for $149.99, thanks to a nifty 27% discount. You can also save an additional $7 using an on-page coupon, so you’ll actually be able to grab the 12th gen gaming CPU for $142.99. For the money, you’ll get a six-core processor with clocks speeds up to 4.4Ghz, and I can say first hand that it pairs nicely with even the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 without much bottlenecking. Not that you’ll be forking out for the flagship graphics card if you’re building a gaming PC on a budget, but it’s definitely a processor that can rise to the challenge.

Just so we’re clear, I’m not saying you should necessarily buy this i5 CPU over newer options, especially if you have the spare cash. The chip featured in my friend and colleague Duncan’s 13th Gen Intel i5-13600K review will provide you with better specs and performance, but it does come in at $329. So, if you’re looking to keep costs super low without compromising gaming performance, it’s worth considering the ever slightly older 12th gen chip instead. It even comes with a stock cooler, something that’ll save you spending extra pennies.

No matter what chip you decide to go for, I still think it’s worth questioning whether you need an i7 or i9 in your gaming PC. I’ve been using the Intel Core i5-12400F since its 2022 debut, and I’ve yet to encounter any issues relating to bottlenecking. I even managed to avoid any performance hiccups when reviewing the RTX 4090, which is a testament to the fact that many new games aren’t particularly CPU bound. If we're being sensible about pairing parts, it'd be wiser to use this chip with an Nvidia RTX 4060, but there's nothing stopping you opting for a beefier card.

I’m sure some of you out there will have a different opinion on the matter, especially if you care about marginal frame rate differences, but if I was building a PC for a friend, I’d go with the cheap i5 chip over most options out there. I’ll be testing the Intel i9-13900 soon, and I’ll be looking closely at whether it actually offers a substantial gaming performance hike over and above the i5-12400F, as it’s still the chip I use every day.

Prefer leaving the building to the experts? Check out our best Alienware gaming PC picks for a selection of Aurora rigs. Alternatively, take a look at the best gaming laptop options and take your Steam library on the go.

The Intel Core i5-13600K is exactly what I hoped it would be. I was talking to my brother recently about the PC I just built, and when I mentioned the gaming, the benchmarking, the content creation, and the general work I'd be doing on it, he asked if the processor was an i7 or an i9. I shook my head. 

I'm a little surprised that the i5 still isn't considered viable by a lot of folks for more demanding workloads, even if its value reputation has been growing in recent years. With the 13th generation, and to a certain extent, the last generation of Intel's chips, the i5 has become an absolute powerhouse. So much so, that I'm beginning to question who an i7 and i9 are actually for.

PC components are expensive, and with the 13th Gen i5 starting at around £289.99 / $300 just under a year after launch, a higher-tier processor than this would definitely be asking for a lot. Especially when you consider the generational overhaul a lot of modern components are demanding at present. DDR5 RAM, SSDs that are fast as hell, not to mention a bespoke graphics card and a motherboard that's compatible with it all. Together, that amounts to a small fortune, so why bother spending any more money on a higher-ranking CPU if the i5 can be everything you need?

My hope going into this review was that it could be the best CPU for gaming I'd need. It didn't disappoint.

Specs and features

There isn't much to report about the aesthetics of the 13600K. It's standard fare in the looks department compared to Intel's other chips and has the handy triangle on the bottom left corner to tell you which way up it needs to be seated on your motherboard.

The socket all of the 13th Gen Raptor Lake Intel CPUs work with is the LGA1700, which means it's the same as 12th Gen processors. The jury's still out on whether 14th Gen CPUs, which are supposedly arriving in a few months, will also use this socket. I, for one, hope they will.

One of the biggest barriers to entry for a lot of people I talk to, whether they're interested in buying one of the best gaming PCs or upgrading their own rigs, is having a motherboard that's compatible with the latest parts. With three recent generations using one socket, we'd hopefully see some increased value across the board, and more people trading up to the latest and greatest. On another note, it'll be interesting to see what more can be tapped out of this chipset when the "Raptor Lake Refresh" wave arrives.

The 13600K has 14 cores - 6 performance, and 8 efficiency (a lot more than people would typically expect of i5 processors), and 20 threads. For those that may be unaware of what these things actually mean, picture this processor as a factory with 14 workers manning some conveyor belts going in and out. This particular factory has 20 conveyor belts, which the factory workers can use to spread out their workload so nothing gets backed up and the whole operation runs like clockwork. 

The 13th Gen i5 has that aforementioned Raptor Lake architecture and will work with DDR5 and Gen 5 SSDs, so long as you have a motherboard that's compatible. One thing you are missing out on compared to an i7 or i9, is that you don't have Raptor Lake's Turbo Max 3.0, a clever feature that identifies your particular processor's most efficient cores and prioritizes them for faster speed. To be honest, though, this isn't exactly something I noticed after having hands-on time with at least one of each CPU from this generation.

In terms of raw specs, the 13600K is perhaps the closest on paper to the 12th Gen Intel Core i7-12700K, which I happen to have a lot of hands-on time with since it was our testing rig's processor of choice until very recently. Compared to that processor, the 13600K has a slightly faster boost clock, and more cores, but is otherwise virtually identical. In terms of feel during general PC usage, this processor actually feels more efficient and tends to run cooler, perhaps because it's slightly less power-hungry. 

Maybe most importantly, the 13600K is cheaper than a 12th Gen i7, despite being newer. The i5-13600K means you get the unlocked multiplier for overclocking from the "K". If you go for the lightly cheaper 13600KF model, you get the same multiplier, but no integrated graphics, so make sure you have one of the best graphics cards if that's the one you go for.

Performance

I've put this CPU to the test in my own personal build for the past three to four weeks, and it hasn't once let me down. In that time, I've used it for working from home, which often means having a minimum of 15 tabs open at any one time, as well as a VPN, and a few other applications running all the while. Besides that, I've done some benchmarking and gaming too, and despite all reports that 13th gen processors run hot, I've had mine in a small-form-factor build in a Corsair 2000D Airflow RGB chassis, and its temperatures have been super-manageable.

In my spare time, I do a lot of content creation for YouTube, as well as some live streaming. Coming from an older AMD Ryzen 5 3400G CPU in my previous build, live streaming is absolutely where I feel the biggest difference with the 13600K. Where streams may have struggled before, and I had to be very cutthroat about the number of programs I had open while live, the 13th Gen i5 feels like it isn't even sweating. Playing games on the same PC as I was streaming definitely didn't seem like a sustainable practice, but it's now more than possible. I'm yet to test the i5's prowess when it comes to video editing, but given how it trounced playing city-building games while I was streaming, I have no doubts it will smash any video editing demands I have for it. Particularly because it's paired in my build with Sabrent's Rocket DDR5 RAM, which is up there with the very best RAM for gaming on the market.

Then, of course, there's gaming, and this is where I think the 13th Gen i5 will win over a lot of hearts. For testing processors like this one, we'll be taking typically CPU-intensive titles and seeing how they get on. Total War: Warhammer 3, Cities Skylines, as well as other City Building/RTS games, are a great test, since they require a CPU to keep track of a lot of moving parts in the game at any one time, be it hundreds of little citizens, or full-blown Warhammer armies tearing one another to shreds with magic and physics all running rampant. 

I ran Total War's three included benchmarks and loaded up the most populated community scenarios in Cities Skylines I could find. I then tracked frame rates, temperatures, total CPU power, and Core voltages, as well as quoted percentages of CPU usage. You can see the results below.

I also turned this CPU at one of my go-to testing games, HUNT: Showdown, to see how it compared to my playtesting with the 12th Gen i7. I managed to play at 4K with mid settings enabled and hit 60-80FPS more than comfortably, and the CPU only sat between 65°C and 75°C. Granted, this was while using an Acer Predator Bifrost Intel Arc A770 OC with 16GB of VRAM, but even so, I haven't seen those frame rates with the 12700K outside of testing the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX, RX 7900 XT, and RTX 4070 Ti.

Lastly, I got oddly glued to Timberborn when testing the 13th Gen i5, another City Builder that's less demanding than Total War and Cities. I asked the CPU to simulate my small community of beavers as their district grew around them and was very pleasantly surprised at the results. Using a quoted 5% of the CPU, I was hitting 120FPS on and off stream at higher resolutions, with the temperature sitting comfortably in the 65°C range.

Industry-standard benchmarking tests were a similar story, with Cinebench and Blender pulling the hottest temperatures out of the 13600K I'd seen, all the while achieving some really decent results.

One thing I do want to touch on is that when it comes to wattage, voltages, and temperatures, these numbers might seem high for a mid-ranger. That said, the 13600K manages to get similar performance to last-gen's i7 and isn't as power-hungry.

For the most part, temperatures here are very manageable - I'm not using a radiator, AIO, or water cooler. Airflow alone keeps the ambient temperatures of the 13600K to an acceptable 40-50°C. In terms of ambient power, the CPU pulls through a core voltage of 0.728v, and an overall wattage of 10.6W. These things aren't nearly as extreme as an i7 or i9 - the latter literally reached boiling point when I tested it in the Acer Predator Orion 7000 (2023), so that's worth bearing in mind.

Overall, I'm so satisfied with the 13th Gen Intel Core i5-13600K. No matter what I require of it, it's always up for the task. Given the price points of Raptor Lake's CPU range, the strong performance of this CPU makes me question who on earth actually needs an i7 or i9.

Should you buy the Intel Core i5-13600K?

For the majority of people, the 13th Gen Intel i5-13600K is all you'll need. An i5 may be a "mid-range" processor, but in this day and age, I think we need to re-assess what that actually means. The fact this thing is, on paper, a 12th Gen i7, and feels to me from extensive use of both like the better CPU overall says a lot. Not to mention, it's cheaper.

Don't get me wrong, the 13th Gen i7 and i9 will no doubt give you better performance when pairing with the highest-end GPUs like the RTX 4090, and when trying to get the most out of the best gaming monitors. But for the majority of people that aren't running those expensive bits of kit, I'd recommend seriously thinking about what you'll need from a CPU before writing off an i5. PC components are expensive, and there really is no point in buying a more expensive brain for your computer when the i5 is powerful enough to give you what you want.

I doubt that many people will go quite as hard on their CPUs as I do. Hardware testing, content creation, and 4K gaming will put any chipset to the test. If you do one of those things, let alone all three, the i5-13600K won't let you down. Outside of looking at the AMD side, this is one of the best CPUs for gaming you'll find. 

How we tested the Intel Core i5-13600K

I put the 13th Gen Intel Core i5-13600K to the test in my own PC for almost a month leading up to this review. During that time I used it for work, content creation, live streaming, and gaming on almost a daily basis. I paired it with a Noctua NH-L9i-17xx Low-Profile Cooler, Noctua NT-H1 Thermal Paste, and supported it with 3 intakes chassis fans, and 2 extractors. The chassis used for this review was the Corsair 2000D Airflow RGB, the GPU was an Acer Predator Bifrost Intel Arc A770 OC, and the RAM was 32B of Sabrent Rocket DDR5. The motherboard pulling all these components together is an ASUS ROG Strix Z790-i. 

For industry-standard benchmarking tests, I used rendering tests from free and open-source Blender, as well as Cinebench. In terms of gaming, I tested how it handled games like Cities Skylines, and Total War Warhammer 3 which are known for being CPU-intensive. In the same vein, I played lots of Timberborn, as well as HUNT: Showdown. Where possible, I compared my experience with this CPU's performance to my time with the 12th Gen Intel Core i7-12700K, my old AMD Ryzen 5 3400G, and the 13th Gen Intel Core i9 that was inside the Acer Predator Orion 7000 I reviewed recently. 

To track numbers for all these things, I predominantly used Armoury Crate since I'm working on an Asus motherboard, but compared figures to ones found in iCUE and Predator Bifrost's software. 

To read more about the ways we test the latest PC components here at GamesRadar+, have a read of our hardware policy.

For more PC content, check out our thoughts on the best Alienware gaming PCs, the best PC cases, and the best computer speakers.