Sipearl has been developing a custom CPU, especially designed for high-performance workloads, named 'Rhea', for over five years. In late May, it was finally announced that the company had received the CPU from the fab, initiating the bring-up process, which is a significant milestone. The HPC CPU sports over 80 cores, in addition to an innovative memory subsystem. We spoke directly with Craig Prunty, vice president of marketing and business development of SiPearl, to learn the fine-grained details.

The Rhea CPU is intended to reach markets by late 2026 or early 2027, and won't be the most performant HPC CPU on the market. Regardless, SiPearl told us at Computex that there is interest both towards Rhea and its successors from rather unexpected parties, so the company is in with a chance to become a successful CPU designer over time.

Rhea's long road toward reality

SiPearl's Rhea (or Rhea1, how the company prefers to call the unit these days) sports 80 Arm Neoverse V1 cores with two 256-bit Scalable Vector Extension (SVE) engines for fast vector computations in FP64, FP32, BF16, and INT8 formats; 1 MB of L2 per core; 80 MB system-level cache (SLC), and 104 PCIe 5.0 lanes. The CPU has a unique memory subsystem comprising four HBM2E interfaces for 64 GB of on-package HBM2E stacks for applications that require massive memory bandwidth (think supercomputer applications like fluid dynamics) and four DDR5 interfaces supporting two 256 GB DIMMs per channel, for up to 2 TB of memory per socket. Rhea comprises 61 billion transistors and is fabbed by TSMC using its N6 process technology.

SiPearl received the first samples of its Rhea processor in mid-May, and the CPU is currently in bring-up mode. So far, it looks like the very first silicon works just fine, so the company will not have to respin it, which means SiPearl has a good chance of shipping it to customers in the coming quarters.

"The Rhea1 CPU is in its 12-week bring-up process since May 13, and it works exactly as it was designed to do," said Craig Prunty, vice president of marketing and business development of SiPearl, in an interview with Tom's Hardware Premium. "The test version of Rhea1 will be available for testing by partners and EU collaborative projects at the end of the bring-up process. The general availability of Rhea1 is scheduled for end of 2026."

Getting the very first silicon to work correctly is a stroke of good luck, especially for the very first product from a startup that has never designed a complex CPU before. However, it has taken the company over five years to define and then develop its processor, an unacceptably long cycle. With Rhea, SiPearl not only built its processor, but it actually built the company, Craig Prunty admitted in an interview with Tom's Hardware. The company once tried to work with a contract chip designer, but eventually canceled the deal and formed five in-house development teams in Europe. Since these teams have never worked together before, the processor was delayed a number of times from 2023 to 2026. It, of course, gained eight additional cores in the meantime, but this hardly justifies a three-year delay.

"We have five development teams in Europe: Maisons Laffitte, Massy (both in the Paris region), Grenoble and Sofia Antipolis in France, Barcelona in Spain," Prunty said. "The Bologna team is currently being put together."

One of the reasons why SiPearl has so many locations is that it wants to shrink its development cycle to around 18 months to offer competitive CPUs.

Now, because it is 2026, HBM2E memory is extremely hard to get, which is why Rhea1 will be a limited-run processor only available to select clients and partners. In theory, this is not something that is going to happen to SiPearl's Athena processor for aerospace, defense, and government applications, which is essentially Rhea with 16, 32, 48, 64, or 80 Neoverse V1 cores and without onboard HBM2E, which will be sold based on market demand sometime in 2028. Though, do not expect Athena to have a very long lifespan. SiPearl hopes to tape out its 2^nd Generation Rhea (Rhea2) processor in 2027. That CPU will not have onboard HBM, so its derivatives for aerospace, defense, and government systems will probably follow shortly, making Athena1 obsolete.

Opening unexpected doors

To a large degree, the first-generation Rhea processor is more than just a product for SiPearl, as it is meant to put the company on the map of data center and supercomputer CPUs and proof that a European entity can develop a competitive processor. SiPearl originally intended to address European supercomputers and sovereign AI infrastructure with Rhea1. However, many commercial cloud providers in Europe and the Middle East plan to evaluate the platform and even deploy it (albeit not widely) as they want to ensure they have access to technology in the current geopolitical situation.

While the CPU is the industry's third processor to use a hybrid memory subsystem comprising HBM2E and DDR5 (for which SiPearl deserves accolades), it is very late to market, so while it is natural that various sovereign AI and HPC deployments and Europe-funded supercomputers will deploy it, expecting commercial companies to deploy Neoverse V1-based machines in 2027 is pretty naïve. However, commercial companies will validate and test the platform, possibly do some software porting, and ensure that it works as intended. Some companies might even deploy Rhea1 in their data centers. As Craig Punty puts it, Rhea1 could open rather unexpected doors for SiPearl.

As it turns out, geopolitical tensions and export controls force big players to look for alternatives to American hardware, which is where SiPearl's processors could fit rather well. SiPearl is based in France, it has R&D centers around Europe, it licenses technologies from Arm, and produces its CPUs in Taiwan. The company cannot ship its CPUs to China due to export restrictions, but it can sell them to clients in Europe and the Middle East without restraint, which is its indisputable trump card. Assuming that SiPearl offers competitive performance, its CPUs are almost guaranteed to be adopted by sovereign AI and HPC deployments in Europe, which means guaranteed revenue.

One might argue that since SiPearl uses Arm's cores, it will inevitably compete against Arm's AGI processors eventually. Indeed, it will, once its CPUs address large CSPs. Which is why the company must stay ahead of Arm's own offerings in terms of performance and features, or at least be on par with them.

Seine reference server

For now, SiPearl is bringing up its Rhea1 processor in its labs. The company already has its Seine reference server design that is primarily designed for validation, testing, evaluation, and software porting. For AI and HPC deployments, Seine can be configured for one Rhea CPU and two accelerators; for more traditional supercomputer needs, two Seine motherboard can be installed into one chassis, though the nodes will work independently.

Speaking of the Seine motherboard, it should be noted that since SiPearl uses it for bringing up the CPU, it had to be made perfect so to exclude any possible problems on its side. To that end, it uses costly components and an ultra-expensive 26-layer printed circuit board to ensure signal integrity, reduce crosstalk, provide the best quality power possible, and ensure maximum mechanical stability.

The Seine server reference design will be used by Bull to build servers for the Jupiter supercomputer, according to Prunty. Other server suppliers may follow and adopt the same design to offer their servers based on Rhea1.

"We had also a partnership agreement signed with HPE to work together on European supercomputers tender offers," Prunty said. "Our CPUs will also equip other servers as part of European AI gigafactory project."

Sipearl's Rhea readies up

Developing a supercomputer-grade processor in Europe is already quite an achievement, but developing a CPU that works fine from the first silicon could indeed be considered a breakthrough for a startup. In addition, SiPearl tapes out its Rhea in a good time when potential customers may adopt it despite the fact that Neoverse V1 technology that powers the chip is outdated. As it turns out, export controls made not only sovereign AI and HPC deployments look in SiPearl's direction, but private CSPs in Europe and the Middle East also plan to evaluate its processors.

SiPearl admits that a five-year development cycle is too long for a modern CPU, though it remains to be seen whether it can indeed shrink it to 18 months. The company already has five development sites and is building another one, so it looks like it the company is on the right path. Yet, SiPearl must prove that it can develop Arm-based processors that are competitive against Arm's own AGI as well as other Arm-powered data center CPUs, something that will not be easy to do given the fact that SiPearl is a startup, whereas its potential rivals are billion-dollar companies.

Of course, SiPearl will always have a couple of trumps up its sleeve: the European Processor Initiative (EPI) as well as sovereign AI and HPC deployments that will always prefer locally developed CPUs no matter what. Whether such businesses are enough to build a world-class processor developer is something that remains to be seen, but at the very least, SiPearl will not vanish into oblivion like many other European CPUs makers.

Only a little while back, Phoronix got the chance to test-drive one of Nvidia's upcoming Arm-based Vera CPUs. In certain approved workloads, the chip put up an impressive showing, nipping at the heels of its Xeon and Epyc x86 competitors. In specific single-threaded scenarios, Vera "absolutely dusted the competition" (our words). But AMD had some things to say about the Phoronix test, firing back with its own metrics of a 3.3x performance gain over Vera for the projected output of a 100 kW rack of its hardware.

And Nvidia is already thinking about this future. It revealed that its next-gen Rigel Arm v9.2 CPU core, shipping as part of its Rosa CPU, will deliver even higher per-core performance than Vera's Olympus core within the same silicon footprint via "better instruction delivery," more L2 cache, and better memory handling.

Now, Nvidia is reasserting Vera's advantage for AI work by describing it with a new product category: a "max single-threaded CPU at scale" rather than a parallel-processing beast. Instead of simply maximizing the core count per socket, Nvidia says Vera's monolithic 88-core design is meant to provide strong performance per core under load, enough memory bandwidth per core to keep active cores supplied with data, and predictable latency.

Nvidia describes AI inference workloads as being bound by single-thread speed. For example, a reasoning AI will run the model for one step, and will run the model again as many times as it takes until the answer is generated. Since each step needs the output from the previous one, no amount of parallelism will help — the speed at which one thread can run is most important. The situation is similar in agentic workloads, as agent B can't get its work started without knowing what happened with agent A.

Vera's design, then, appears to be one aimed at both having and eating the proverbial cake: high single-thread speed with a large number of available threads. Vera is an 88-core design with SMT support for 176 total threads. And to supply each of those cores with adequate bandwidth, Nvidia says Vera talks to LPDDR5X RAM at 1.2 TB/s, and that its monolithic compute die keeps cores well fed and avoids bottlenecks thanks to 3.4 TB/s of core-to-core bandwidth. The company says the latter figure is 3x that of "any other data center CPU."

There are many ways to measure inter-core bandwidth, so direct comparisons are tricky at best, but given the bespoke design of Vera for AI inference tasks, the claim is at least plausible.

The company's latest blog post about the new silicon reiterates this point, claiming its new silicon delivers 1.8x higher performance versus its x86 competition in "loaded CPU workloads that represent agentic execution," 1.5x higher perf in coding workflows, and 3x faster work in database analytics.

The numbers Nvidia touts purportedly come from real-world scenarios, starting with those from Perplexity, whose usage of Vera in coding agent work delivered a claimed 1.5x performance increase over x86, and a 1.9x speedup running concurrent sandboxes.

The claimed speed increases are wider still in database workloads, with Starburst (federated database firm) clocking a 3x uplift in large-scale SQL analytics, while Redpanda's real-time analytics saw a claimed 6x latency drop. According to Nvidia, all this purported performance is delivered by Vera's particular architecture, one that aims to deliver maximal single-thread performance with high thread counts.

We should note that vendor-approved benchmarks should always be taken with a bucket of salt, particularly those for hardware in a field that can shuffle trillions of dollars in a single day. The company doesn't say which precise x86 chips it tested Vera against, but it's a fair guess that they're mid- to high-end Intel Xeon and AMD Epyc models.

Nevertheless, in the blog post, Nvidia describes a conundrum that's familiar to most any server administrator: big-iron server chips can pack obscene amounts of cores, making them ideal for processing many tasks at once. However, the more cores you add, the slower they need to be to keep thermal performance and power draw in check. But that scale is an obstacle for tasks that need to be done now, parallelization be darned.

And the architectural decisions involved in using chiplets to scale to high core counts aren't free, either. Nvidia calls this "chiplet tax", and it says that scaling using chiplets creates memory access and performance inconsistencies that Vera's monolithic design is specifically meant to avoid.

We've long emphasized the importance of high single-threaded performance for a fast and responsive experience for client PCs, and it seems like AI agents are going to end up placing similar demands on hardware as they do their thing. If that's how the agentic AI future plays out, Nvidia's particular design optimizations for Vera make greater sense than prioritizing core count above all, as it might be for a general-purpose server chip meant to satisfy different economic and customer demands.

We'll have to see if Intel and AMD respond with "max single-threaded CPUs at scale" of their own.

When Intel switched to a hybrid architecture with its 12th-Gen Alder Lake PUs, it removed AVX-512 support from the lineup entirely because the E-cores didn't support it. Since then, every subsequent generation has shipped without it... until now. Just today, a new Linux patch pushed in the RAID optimized path has revealed that AVX-512 is finally returning to Intel CPUs with Nova Lake, present on both P-cores and E-cores.

Intel has been working toward a unified AVX solution for the past few years, as it was originally a champion of the SMID extensions before running into the hybrid hurdle with Alder Lake. Getting past that hurdle is AVX10, which Intel first detailed a few years back. With AVX10.2, 512-bit instructions will run on the P-cores, while either core type can handle converged 256-bit instructions.

As such, the E-cores would have their processing width capped at 256-bit, while the P-cores would be open to the full 512-bit wide pipelines. Any thread could swiftly move between either core type with AVX10 implemented. Previously, if the scheduler shifted a 512-bit task running on a P-core to an E-core, the application would crash instantly because those E-cores couldn't process the instruction.

However, the new patches suggest that Intel has now mandated native 512-bit execution across both P-cores and E-cores, no longer requiring the latter to step down and process the data a bit slower. This is a major development over the standard we originally expected Intel to adopt; the E-cores are apparently becoming just as performant as the P-cores when it comes to SIMD instructions with Nova Lake and later.

Intel's original announcement showed that it had already uncoupled the software improvements of AVX-512 from the physical width of the register, so the new instruction features could remain present for both 512-bit and 256-bit execution. This includes things like masking, embedded broadcast for rounding math operations, and doubling the number of the registers themselves from 16 to 32.

It remains unclear if we will ever see this version of AVX10 on client CPUs, as it seems Nova Lake is going purely for 512-bit execution across both core types. AMD's current-gen Zen 5 processors also have full 512-bit wide registers, while the previous Zen 4 architecture divided a single 512-bit task across two 256-bit execution units over two clock cycles. This ensured execution remained disruption-free even if it took longer.

The last time we saw native AVX-512 support on an Intel client family was Rocket Lake (11th Gen), right before the hybrid era ushered in by Alder Lake. For modern AI workloads and other compute-heavy tasks such as encoding or simulations, AVX-512 instructions bring a huge performance benefit that's foolish to be left on the table. Keep in mind that this is just a Linux patch at the moment and that Intel hasn't officially announced native AVX-512 support for Nova Lake yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intel released its new Core Ultra 200S Plus desktop processors back in March 2026, and it appears that the company has quietly increased their prices. According to Intel's official product page, the Core Ultra 270K Plus now has a recommended customer price of $339–$349, up from the previous $289–$299. Similarly, the Core Ultra 250K Plus has increased from $189–$199 to $219–$229.

While the increase amounts to an additional $30–$50 (depending on the model), it is worth noting that these higher prices have already been reflected on Amazon. We have reached out to Intel to confirm the pricing changes and will update this article if and when the company responds.

The Core Ultra 270K Plus and the 250K Plus are part of Intel’s Arrow Lake Refresh lineup and were introduced with a relatively low price compared to their non-Plus predecessors. Intel claimed up to 15% improvement in gaming performance at 1080p compared to stock Arrow Lake chips thanks to several key improvements aimed at addressing the architectural bottlenecks of the original Arrow Lake processors.

The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus comes with 24 cores, including 8 P-cores and 16 E-cores, which is similar to the more expensive Core Ultra 9 285K. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus comes with 18 cores across 6 P-cores and 12 E-cores, which is slightly below the 20 cores available on the Core Ultra 7 265K. Intel also increased the die-to-die interconnect frequency by 900 MHz to reduce latency and improve gaming performance.

The new chips also offer native support for faster DDR5-7200 memory, as opposed to 6400 MT/s on the non-Plus Arrow Lake chips. Then there’s Intel's new Binary Optimization Tool, a free software utility that analyzes executables and automatically recompiles them with CPU-specific optimizations. According to Intel, this alone is responsible for a significant portion of the gaming performance gains.

While the increase in price may hamper the value advantage that these chips initially offered, there is no doubt that they bring meaningful performance to the table. In our testing, we found the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus to deliver excellent productivity performance with a noticeable uplift in gaming over the original Arrow Lake chips. In fact, it is currently the best Intel CPU on the market. As for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, it offers one of the strongest value propositions at its price point. It also remains our top pick for the best budget CPU, thanks to its ability to compete with similarly priced gaming processors while excelling in heavily threaded workloads.

AMD has submitted Linux kernel patches including support for its new low-power CPU cores that will likely emerge in its future heterogeneous processors. The new patch clearly distinguishes between high-performance cores, efficiency cores, and low-power cores, so it is safe to say that AMD's upcoming CPU platforms will use three types of cores, with the low-power one serving light workloads, reports Phoronix.

AMD's heterogeneous processors identify CPU types using CPUID Function 0x80000026 (Extended CPU Topology), as EBX bits [31:28] carry the core classification. Up until recently, AMD only classified its cores as Performance and Efficiency, while the latest patch adds Low-Power cores. The patch enables Linux to distinguish between Performance, Efficiency, and Low-Power cores efficiently, and the latter are also correctly supported by AMD's performance management.

According to AMD engineer Vishal Badole, these cores are designed specifically for background and idle tasks where reducing energy consumption is more important than offering high performance.

In recent years, both AMD and Intel released heterogeneous processors featuring both high-performance and energy-efficient types of cores in a bid to wed performance and low power consumption. With its latest CPU platforms, Intel introduced its low-power cores located in the SoC tile to offload light tasks and prolong the battery life of laptops. As it turns out, AMD is going the same route. Although AMD uses two different core types, the underlying architecture is the same. It offers a "dense" core offering that's optimized for space, while Intel uses entirely different microarchitectures.

Beyond the description of the Linux patch, AMD disclosed little about the low-power cores. The company only described them as being optimized for the lowest possible power consumption during background processing and idle operation, but did not reveal how they differ architecturally from today's dense Zen 5c cores. In addition, the kernel patches introduce no new scheduling policies or optimization logic beyond identifying the additional CPU category.

AMD also did not reveal whether these cores are based on the Zen 5, Zen 6, or other future microarchitecture. It should indeed be noted that AMD has traditionally preferred to use the same microarchitecture within one CPU, albeit with different optimizations when it comes to die size (or rather floorplan) and clocks. Such an approach greatly simplifies software development and performance management, but at the cost of higher power consumption compared to what a simplified microarchitecture would have offered.

Loongson Technology has announced the Loongson 3C3000, a new 16-core server processor aimed at low-cost general-purpose server systems. Unveiled on June 26, 2026, via a public corporate release, the chip is based on Loongson’s in-house architecture and is designed for small- and medium-sized business workloads, including file, database, web, and business process servers. Loongson says the 3C3000’s general-purpose computing performance matches that of the company’s earlier 3C5000 server processor.

The Loongson 3C3000 — which is based on a 64-bit architecture and supports the LoongArch instruction set — uses the company’s LA364E processor core design and comes in an FCBGA1371 package measuring 37.5mm by 37.5mm. The chip is pin-compatible with the Loongson 3B6000 processor, which should make it easier for system builders to reuse existing platform designs.

The processor features 16 physical cores and 16 threads, with clock speeds ranging from 1.5 GHz to 1.8 GHz. Each core supports 128-bit vector instructions and three-issue out-of-order execution. Loongson says each core integrates two fixed-point units, one vector unit, and two memory access units.

Cache and memory support are modest by modern server standards, but in line with the chip’s low-cost positioning. Each core includes 64KB of private L1 instruction cache and 64KB of private L1 data cache, while all 16 cores share 16MB of L2 cache. The integrated memory controller supports two 72-bit DDR4-2400 memory channels with ECC support, giving the processor server-class error correction for business and infrastructure workloads.

For expansion, the 3C3000 provides two PCIe x16 interfaces, totaling 32 PCIe lanes. These can be split into up to four x4 or x8 interfaces, depending on platform requirements. The chip also includes another PCIe x16 interface that can be configured as LCL (Loongson Coherent Link) for dual-processor interconnection. Other interfaces include SPI, UART, three I2C interfaces, AVS, and 16 GPIOs.

Loongson lists a typical power consumption of 40W when running at 1.5 GHz. The processor supports dynamic shutdown of the main module clock and dynamic frequency adjustment of the main clock domain, helping reduce power consumption under lighter workloads. It also integrates a Loongson-developed security and trust module that supports Chinese national cryptographic algorithms for encryption and decryption.

Unlike the 36C000, which Loongson says matches Intel’s Xeon, the company is positioning the 3C3000 as a low-cost, high-performance server CPU for customers that need general-purpose compute rather than high-end acceleration or AI performance, slotting it below the higher-core-count 3C6000 server lineup the company launched a year earlier. Support for China’s local software and hardware ecosystem also appears to be a selling point. The company has not publicly disclosed pricing, a common move for server processors, which are often sold through system builders and negotiated enterprise deals rather than as boxed retail chips.

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

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

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

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

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

AMD has brought back its gaming champion from four years ago. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D has been revived in 2026 to breathe new life into the AM4 platform. The Zen 3-based CPU was the best CPU for gaming of its time, thanks to the first-generation 3D V-Cache technology. Since then, however, the competition in our CPU benchmark hierarchy has become more fierce.

Today's competition is Intel’s Core i7-14700K, based on the Raptor Lake Refresh architecture. At the time the Ryzen 7 5800X3D released, Intel’s 12th-gen Alder Lake CPUs were its main competition. Here, we revisit the comparison with Intel’s newer Core i7-14700K, which is available around the same price of $350.

The focus of this faceoff is to determine which CPU is the superior all-around chip. We will put the two CPUs through a series of tests spanning different categories to ultimately determine which CPU you should buy for your system.

This faceoff breaks down how two CPUs compare to each other in a head-to-head battle. If you'd like to read more about either processor, as well as see our full suite of tests, make sure to read our AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D re-review and Core i7-14700K faceoff.

Features and Specifications: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs Intel Core i7-14700K

The Ryzen 7 5800X3D was first launched in April 2022 as a part of the Vermeer desktop CPU family. It is based on the Zen 3 architecture and built on TSMC’s 7nm production process. The CPU features 8 cores and 16 threads, with a TDP of 105W and a PPT of 142W. It has a base clock of 3.4 GHz and can boost up to 4.5 GHz.

The 5800X3D only supports DDR4 memory at a rated speed of 3200 MT/s over a dual-channel interface. It is compatible with the AM4 socket, with support for 300-series, 400-series, and 500-series AMD chipsets (though check support with your specific motherboard). It also supports 20 lanes of PCIe Gen 4. However, the 5800X3D does not have integrated graphics.

On a more positive note, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D was the first CPU to employ the new 3D V-Cache technology. As a result of stacking the cache vertically on the die, the 5800X3D has a total L3 cache of 96 MB. Of this pool, 64 MB is part of the 3D V-Cache stack. Core overclocking is disabled on the Ryzen 7 5800X3D due to its 3D V-Cache layout; DRAM overclocking still remains available.

Its competitor, Intel’s Core i7-14700K, uses a vastly different layout. It features the Raptor Lake Refresh architecture, which is a refined version of the 13th-generation Raptor Lake base architecture. The Core i7-14700K was launched in October 2023 and was built on a 10nm production process (Intel 7).

Intel’s 14th-generation CPUs use a hybrid core layout with performance-focused “P-cores” and more efficient “E-cores.” The 14700K also follows this structure, featuring 8 P-cores and 12 E-cores, for a total of 20 cores. In the 14700K, Hyper-Threading is only available on the P-cores, so the CPU has a total of 28 threads. The chip can boost the P-cores up to 5.6 GHz, while the E-core boost clock is 4.3 GHz.

Interestingly, the Core i7-14700K supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory at 3200 MT/s and 5600 MT/s, respectively. The CPU is compatible with the LGA 1700 socket featured in the 600-series and 700-series Intel motherboards. There is also support for 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and 4 PCIe Gen 4 lanes.

The Core i7-14700K has a TDP of 125W, with a higher PL2 limit of 253W. Integrated graphics are also offered in the 14700K in the form of UHD Graphics 770. There is 33MB of shared L3 cache on the chip. Perhaps more importantly, the Core i7-14700K is fully unlocked for overclocking, which is a big advantage over its competitor for today, though that requires a Z-series motherboard.

Zooming out a bit, it is clear that the Core i7-14700K is vastly superior to the Ryzen 7 5800X3D on paper. It is a newer CPU, so it has a better feature set, including PCIe Gen 5 and DDR5 support. It offers more cores, a higher boost clock, integrated graphics, and an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

⭐Winner: Intel Core i7-14700K

Nothing is decided on paper alone, but the Core i7-14700K offers much better specs, newer features, and even has overclocking support. It takes this round quite easily.

Gaming Benchmarks and Performance: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs Intel Core i7-14700K

AMD claims to have “re-engineered” the Ryzen 7 5800X3D for its 2026 re-release, so we have tested it again, along with a whole bunch of worthy competitors, including the 14700K. We chose the 1080p resolution for our 16-game test suite in order to maximize the performance differences between the various CPUs. The graphics card used was the GeForce RTX 5090 to keep potential GPU bottlenecks to a minimum. Let’s get into the results.

Starting off with our 16-game FPS geomean at 1080p, the Core i7-14700K dominates the Ryzen 7 5800X3D with an average result of 166.7 FPS across our tested games, compared to the 145.6 FPS result of the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. That is a 14.5% difference in favor of the 14700K in our performance geomean. In 1% lows, the 14700K leads the Ryzen 7 5800X3D by 20% on average, putting out 114 FPS against the Ryzen’s 95.

However, there is another side to this benchmark table. The Core i7-14700K supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, so we tested it in both configurations. With DDR4-3200 memory, the 14700K’s advantage vanishes, and instead the Ryzen 7 5800X3D leads by 1.04%, or just 1.5 FPS. The 1% lows are in favor of 14700K by only 3 FPS (3.15%), which is astonishingly close.

When the Intel CPU is paired with DDR5 memory, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D’s cache advantage seems to be struggling against the Core i7-14700K’s raw core count and higher boost clock (along with far faster memory speeds). Looking at individual titles, we see a similar pattern with the Core i7-14700K holding a consistent lead over the 5800X3D.

In 007 First Light, the 14700K paired with DDR5 memory has a 25.7% lead on average over the 5800X3D. That lead shrinks to 21.5% in Crimson Desert, and the difference is 13.7% in favor of the 14700K in Cyberpunk 2077. Interestingly, the Core i7-14700K leads the entire pack in Flight Simulator 24, establishing a 26.6% lead over the 5800X3D in this title. The DDR5-equipped 14700K also leads the 5800X3D in Spider-Man 2, Starfield, The Last of Us Part One, Baldur’s Gate 3, and Counter-Strike 2.

However, when the Core i7-14700K is paired with DDR4-3200 memory, the picture changes completely. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D leads the i7-14700K with DDR4 memory in Baldur’s Gate 3 by 11.7%. In Crimson Desert, the lead is 3.2% for the 5800X3D, and 2.6% in Cyberpunk 2077. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D sits between the DDR5 and DDR4 versions of the 14700K in a few other titles, including Counter-Strike 2 and DOOM: The Dark Ages.

There are also some titles in which the Ryzen 7 5800X3D leads both the DDR4 and DDR5-equipped versions of the Core i7-14700K. In F1 2024, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D leads the DDR5 14700K by 5.6%, and the DDR4 14700K by 13.7% on average. The same pattern can be seen in Final Fantasy XIV, with a 6.6% lead over the 14700K using DDR5 memory, and in Minecraft RT, with a 18.5% lead over the 14700K using DDR4 memory.

It is certainly all over the place when you put both configurations of the 14700K into the mix, but the two behave more like separate CPUs. The long and short of it is that the 14700K with DDR5 memory provides the best gaming performance on average, followed by the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. The DDR4-equipped 14700K is ever-so-slightly slower than the 5800X3D, but it really just depends on the game you’re playing.

During our testing, the Core i7-14700K averaged 4.93 GHz with DDR5 memory and 4.88 GHz with DDR4 memory. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D could only manage 4.34 GHz, but it sipped only 77.5 watts during our gaming tests. The 14700K DDR5 averaged 132.4 watts, while the DDR4-equipped 14700K averaged a whopping 155.1 watts during gaming. This is why the 14700K with DDR4 reached an average temperature of 80 °C, compared to 62 °C for the 14700K with DDR5 and 59 °C for the 5800X3D.

In addition to running the coolest, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is also the most efficient CPU of the bunch. The 5800X3D had an FPS-per-watt output of 1.88, compared to 1.26 for the Core i7-14700K with DDR5 memory, and just 0.93 for the DDR4 version. It is amazing how much the Core i7-14700K suffers when paired with DDR4 memory.

Lower overall performance also hurts the value proposition of the DDR4-equipped 14700K, as it puts out just 0.39 FPS-per-dollar, compared to the 0.45 of the DDR5-equipped 14700K. Astonishingly, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D falls between the two 14700K versions, delivering 0.42 FPS per dollar. This makes the Core i7-14700K the value king, but only if you pair it with DDR5 memory. I suspect that will be tricky in the current market.

⭐Winner: Tie

While the Ryzen 7 5800X3D does slightly pull away from the DDR4-equipped 14700K, both of these setups get demolished by the 14700K when it is paired with DDR5 memory. We're calling this round a tie considering the massive price disparity between DDR4 and DDR5 memory right now.

Productivity Benchmarks and Performance: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs Intel Core i7-14700K

Productivity performance spans single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, so we tested the CPUs across a range of benchmarks covering both categories. Just like in our gaming tests, we tested the 14700K with both DDR5 and DDR4 memory, since it does impact the performance significantly.

Intel’s hybrid architecture has historically been quite strong at multi-threaded workloads due to E-cores, and that pattern appears here too. In our multi-threaded performance ranking geomean, the Core i7-14700K scores 492 points, a massive lead of 116.7% over the Ryzen 7 5800X3D that could only manage 227 points on average. Even when the Core i7-14700K is paired with DDR4 memory, it has a 105% higher average score than the Ryzen 7 5800X3D.

The superior core count of the 14700K is proving to be the difference maker in this category. In the Cinebench 2024 multi-core test, the 14700K with DDR5 memory is a whopping 126.6% faster than the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. Even the DDR4-equipped 14700K secures a 107% lead over the 5800X3D in Cinebench. The lead for the 14700K is about 137% in POV-Ray, and it shrinks to 135% when using DDR4 memory.

Blender tests were also favorable for the 14700K, but we didn’t see a big difference between DDR4 and DDR5 systems in these benchmarks. In Junkshop, the DDR5-equipped 14700K leads the 5800X3D by 116.4%; in Monster, by 116.6%; and in Classroom, by 118.3%. The DDR4 variant follows closely behind, by 1 or 2 percentage points.

The memory generation again comes into play when we look at HandBrake x265 10-bit encoding, with the DDR5-14700K leading the 5800X3D by 90.5%, while the DDR4-14700K manages a 82% lead. The gap is even larger in x264 encoding, with the DDR5 variant gaining a 105% lead over the 5800X3D, while the DDR4 variant can only manage a 63% lead.

That still makes the Core i7-14700K far better than the 5800X3D in productivity workloads, regardless of the memory generation. However, we still have single-threaded results to look at. Our single-threaded performance ranking geomean puts the Core i7-14700K 36.6% faster on average than the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. Interestingly, there is no difference in single-threaded performance between the DDR5 and DDR4 variants of the 14700K.

The same trend is seen in individual benchmarks as well. The 14700K is about 25% faster than the 5800X3D in Lame’s audio encoding test, and the DDR4 variant is in the same ballpark as well. Curiously, the DDR4-equipped 14700K is slightly faster than the DDR5-14700K in Cinebench 2024 and also outperforms the 5800X3D by 36.6%. Safe to say, the RAM difference doesn’t really come into play in these tests.

Overall, though, the winner is quite clear. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D is a gaming-oriented chip with only 8 cores and 16 threads, so it is no match for the 20-core 14700K in productivity workloads. Whether you go for DDR4 or DDR5 is your decision, but the productivity champion of this faceoff is the Core i7-14700K.

⭐Winner: Intel Core i7-14700K

With an average lead of 116% over the Ryzen 7 5800X3D in multi-threaded tasks, the Core i7-14700K sweeps the productivity round quite easily.

Overclocking: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs Intel Core i7-14700K

Overclocking has never been a strong suit of AMD Ryzen processors; however, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D doesn’t support core overclocking at all. AMD cited the 3D V-Cache technology as the reason the 5800X3D can’t be overclocked, and they were right to assume so.

Due to the vertically-stacked cache, heat transfer from the CPU die to the heatspreader was a real issue. An overclocked 5800X3D would have sipped more power and produced more heat. Therefore, an efficient heat-transfer system was needed but could not be developed in time for the first-generation V-Cache product.

AMD has since reinstated overclocking support for Ryzen 9000 series X3D CPUs by flipping the cache layout, so it no longer hinders heat transfer. However, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D’s core multiplier still remains locked, but you can still tune the DRAM and Infinity Fabric clocks.

The Core i7-14700K, on the other hand, is tailor-made for overclocking. Being a K-series SKU, the 14700K comes with an unlocked multiplier and all the Intel bells and whistles for overclocking. It can reach 6.1 - 6.2 GHz on individual cores with proper cooling, and users can expect a 5.6 - 5.8 GHz all-core overclock on most setups.

Its overclocking toolkit features traditional multiplier adjustments, voltage controls, and established BIOS interfaces that most enthusiasts are already familiar with. The Core i7-14700K also has a significant amount of power headroom to play with, although temperatures become a concern as soon as the power consumption ramps up.

By all overclocking metrics, the Core i7-14700K is the superior CPU for tinkerers. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D can’t be manually tuned, at least not in the traditional sense, and therefore doesn’t really stand a chance in this round.

⭐Winner: Intel Core i7-14700K

The 14700K is the real deal when it comes to overclocking support. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D is locked and therefore can’t be overclocked, so Intel sweeps this round.

Power Consumption and Efficiency: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs Intel Core i7-14700K

The Ryzen 7 5800X3D has a base TDP of 105W and a PPT of 142W. Intel’s is much higher, with the 14700K clocking in at 125W TDP and a PL2 limit of 253 watts. However, TDP numbers don’t give us a good idea of real-world power consumption, so we ran our own detailed tests.

First, at idle, the 5800X3D consumed only 5 watts, while the 14700K consumed 27 watts. In an active-idle situation, such as YouTube playback, the Core i7-14700K consumed 28 watts with DDR5 memory and a concerning 39 watts with DDR4 memory. The 5800X3D, on the other hand, sipped only 9 watts, making it anywhere from 67% - 76% more efficient than the 14700K.

Moving on to all-core workloads, in our y-cruncher multi-threaded AVX power test, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D consumes 119 watts, while the Core i7-14700K clocks in at a staggering 335 watts, a 181.5% higher figure. Even the Core i7-14700K with DDR4 memory consumed 307 watts, which is still a 158% increase over the 5800X3D’s power consumption.

In Linpack, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is again more reserved, with the 14700K consuming 168.6% more power than the Ryzen. The DDR4 setup was not much better, with a 137.2% higher power consumption than the 5800X3D in this test. The gap widens even more in Cinebench 2024’s multi-core render and our Blender tests, which show the 14700K consuming anywhere from 250% to 285% higher power than the 5800X3D.

In our encoding tests, the situation remains pretty much the same. In Handbrake x264, the DDR5-14700K consumed 242% more power than the 5800X3D, while the DDR4-14700K consumed nearly 200% more. Similar numbers were seen in Handbrake x265 and SVT_AV1 encoding, with the 5800X3D being the clear winner.

We even looked at single-threaded workloads to determine the power consumption of those tasks. In y-cruncher’s single-threaded AVX power test, we saw the 14700K consume 157% more power when paired with DDR5 memory, and 132% more when using DDR4 memory. Safe to say, the Intel CPU does not fare any better in these workloads either.

To determine the efficiency, we calculated the watts-per-FPS number in Handbrake x265. The 5800X3D was 43.4% more efficient than the 14700K with DDR5 RAM, and about 41% more efficient in this task than the 14700K with DDR4 memory. The pattern can again be seen in Cinebench 2024’s efficiency test, where we look at points-per-watt. The 5700X3D is anywhere from 62% to 68% more efficient than the 14700K in this task.

We can also visualize the efficiency differences using our handy scatter plots. In the Linkpack power efficiency plot, the 5800X3D is towards the bottom left of the chart, while the 14700K is more towards the top. This means that the 14700K uses substantially more energy to deliver marginally higher performance than the 5800X3D. Ideally, you want to be towards the bottom right of this graph.

So, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D consumes much less power in both single-threaded and multi-threaded productivity workloads, and as we saw in our gaming tests, it runs cooler as well. The Core i7-14700K has a distinct performance advantage in all-core workloads, but the power consumption ramps up quickly once it gets going. Still, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is the clear winner in this round.

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D

The Ryzen 7 5800X3D consumes between 150% and 300% less power than the Core i7-14700K in all-core workloads, making it the definitive winner in this round.

Pricing: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs Intel Core i7-14700K

The pricing situation is a bit of a wildcard in this comparison, since these are not exactly “new” CPUs. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D was recently re-released at $350, which is $100 lower than its 2022 price tag. The Core i7-14700K is currently priced at $370 at the time of writing, which makes the 5800X3D $20 cheaper in a direct comparison.

However, comparing the two CPUs is more than just comparing their sticker price. We must also look at the platform costs of the two CPUs. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D uses the fan-favorite AM4 socket, which has a whole heap of chipsets in all price brackets. You can pair the Ryzen 7 5800X3D with a mid-range B550 or a high-end X570 motherboard, but older 400-series motherboards are also compatible, depending on the board.

As far as the price goes, B550 motherboards can be purchased for $80 - $180, while higher-end X570 motherboards range from $150 - $300. Some premium models can even go beyond $400, but those are not really needed for our CPU since it doesn’t support overclocking. A nice mid-tier B550 or X570 motherboard will be more than enough for our needs.

Memory is where the price difference really grows. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D only supports DDR4 memory, so it is relatively safe from the ongoing DRAM crisis. A nice 32GB DDR4-3200 kit can run you about $140 - $160, which is definitely higher than DDR4 prices of the past, but nothing compared to current DDR5 rates. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D also needs an aftermarket cooler since it doesn’t come with one, and that can cost you about $100 - $150 too.

For the Core i7-14700K, you have the option of either a DDR4 or a DDR5 motherboard. Even then, you still have to choose between a 600-series or a 700-series chipset. For the sake of this comparison, let’s go with a Z790 motherboard since the 14700K is unlocked and we want those overclocking capabilities. A basic Z790 motherboard can be found around the $150 mark, but we would want to go with something that has decent VRMs. That can cost around $200-$250 at current prices.

Of course, as evidenced in our benchmarks, DDR5 memory is the best way to maximize the 14700K's performance. Due to the RAMpocalypse, DDR5 memory is ridiculously expensive, and a 32GB DDR5-6000 kit can cost between $390 - $550 at the time of writing. Going with DDR4 would require a motherboard swap, but it would save you between $300 and $350 on the system based on these two components alone.

For cooling, the 14700K requires special consideration, as we have the option to overclock. Even a stock 14700K sips more power and produces more heat than a 5800X3D, but if you plan to overclock, the thermals can get out of hand pretty quick. You’ll ideally use a solid 360mm AiO liquid cooler for the 14700K, which can add about $100 - $150 to the cost of your build.

Another factor to consider when determining the value of a CPU is the longevity of its platform. AMD’s AM4 platform has been going strong for a decade, and AMD has continued to support it through updates and releases such as the 5800X3D. However, it would be hard to see AMD releasing more CPUs for the AM4 platform going forward.

On the other hand, Intel’s LGA 1700 socket was already semi-retired, but new reports suggest that Intel will bring this platform back in early 2027. New “Raptor Lake Next” CPUs will reportedly be available on the same socket and the same motherboards, so there is certainly a better upgrade path on Intel’s side.

When we put everything together, the Core i7-14700K is a bit hard to recommend from a value perspective. The motherboards for the 14700K are more expensive on average, and if you want to maximize its performance, you will have to take a massive hit to your wallet with DDR5 memory. Moreover, it is more expensive to cool, too. Its platform looks more future-proof in light of recent rumors, but that can’t guarantee it a win in this round.

⭐Winner: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D

The 5800X3D is cheaper to get up and running, since you only need an affordable B550 motherboard and some DDR4 memory to get started. The 14700K can be cheap, but that requires you to leave serious performance on the table and go with a DDR4 setup.

Bottom Line: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs Intel Core i7-14700K

After a grueling 6-round back-and-forth, we finally have our winner. The Intel Core i7-14700K is the superior CPU of the two. Now, it is not as black-and-white as the 4-3 score might suggest, but the 14700K is still the winner of this faceoff.

The Core i7-14700K delivers better gaming performance on average than the 5800X3D. Sure, there are some titles that favor AMD’s 3D V-Cache, but those wins were not as frequent. However, AMD’s 5800X3D has a better chance if the 14700K is limited by DDR4 memory.

Intel’s 14700K is also vastly superior in productivity and has support for manual overclocking. AMD’s main selling point for the 5800X3D in 2026 is its low price, both upfront and in terms of platform costs. It is also an easier CPU to maintain since it runs cooler and consumes less power.

Interestingly, the choice also depends heavily on your memory generation of choice. It is better to save a few bucks and go with a 5800X3D if you plan to stay on DDR4 for now. However, if you are willing to make the (difficult) jump to DDR5, the 14700K is the clear choice.

Potential buyers who want to stick to gaming should still prioritize a Ryzen 7 5800X3D over a Core i7-14700K with DDR5 memory. On the other hand, if you regularly run any type of productivity workload, the 14700K blows the Ryzen out of the water.

⭐ Winner: Intel Core i7-14700K

Nonetheless, the overall winner of our faceoff is Intel’s Core i7-14700K.

Check Out More CPU Faceoffs

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

Scalpers are moving in on AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X3D 10th Anniversary Edition. The new CPU, which is identical to the original but "re-engineered" for a new bonding process, is on sale officially today, June 29. We've been keeping track of inventory and haven't seen the chip available for more than a few minutes — and amid the flurry, scalpers are stepping in and asking for $600 or more for the chip on the secondhand market, sometimes doubling the CPU's $350 MSRP.

Over on eBay, most listings for the chip are above $600, with some asking for $750 or more. Worse, they've sold for that price. Looking at sold listings, at least two of the CPUs sold today, one for $540 and another for $585. Most of the listings just use the stock product photo, but some scalpers have an actual CPU in-hand.

Micro Center has the chip available for sale, standalone or as part of a bundle with a motherboard and RAM, and it's exclusively available in Micro Center stores. Presumably some scalpers went to buy a chip at Micro Center this morning to flip it on eBay in the afternoon.

Although it's easy to get caught up in the rush of a new release (or old release, in this case), we don't recommend giving into scalper prices. Rumors have circulated that the 10th Anniversary Edition is a limited-time run, but that's not the case. AMD says it plans on continuing to make the CPU, so we should see inventory stabilize eventually.

We have some placeholder listings available. Again, we've seen inconsistent inventory throughout the morning, so check back at these retailers regularly:

• 5800X3D 10th Anniversary Edition at Newegg
• 5800X3D 10th Anniversary Edition at Best Buy
• 5800X3D 10th Anniversary Edition at B&H

We've been checking retailer listings all morning, and we've only briefly seen the chip in stock. Online, some buyers claim they've secured a CPU through Newegg, but we haven't been able to successfully move through the checkout process yet. We also haven't seen the chip come back in stock on AMD's direct web store yet.

Because of that, it looks like retailers are doing something of a staggered rollout. There's a good chance we'll see more inventory released throughout the day, so make sure to check back at retailers.

We just re-reviewed the Ryzen 7 5800X3D to evaluate how the CPU stacks up to the current market at its new $350 suggested retail price. If you already have an AM4 motherboard and memory to go with the CPU, it's a good choice at $350. Otherwise, there are better options.

AMD's newer Ryzen 7 7600X3D is just as fast in applications, despite sporting fewer cores, and it's around 15% faster in games. Meanwhile, Intel's Core i7-14700K paired with DDR4 matches the 5800X3D in games and offers around twice the multithreaded performance. With DDR5, the Core i7-14700K wins across the board.

AMD answered the demands of gamers and re-released the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, though not without compromise. Although the return of Zen 3 X3D has been a good idea for months, given the limited time we saw those chips on the market, this re-release comes with a surprisingly high price, considering the silicon and how it compares to the best CPUs for gaming.

Price is the biggest issue for the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. AMD shaved $100 off the original MSRP for the 10th Anniversary Edition re-release, but that puts it in very competitive waters, even considering current RAM prices. The CPU is flanked on one side by the Core i7-14700K that also supports DDR4 memory, and on the other by the Ryzen 5 7600X3D, which offers superior gaming performance and a lower price to offset the cost of a DDR5 platform.

The chip mainly appeals to those who already have an AM4 motherboard and memory to go with it, and who were unfortunate enough to miss the small window when you could buy the Ryzen 7 5800X3D a few years ago. In that situation, just about any price is a deal compared to the competition.

Otherwise, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is about $70 to $100 too expensive, and even that lower price would be questionable if DDR5 prices weren’t out of control. Although the chip has earned its legendary status among gamers, revisiting it in 2026 shows clearly that it maxes out what DDR4 platforms are capable of in games, and it falls far too short of the DDR4 competition in applications.

The island of AM4 users stranded without a clear upgrade path will love the 5800X3D re-release. But the chip is not nearly as impressive as it once was if you have to buy a motherboard and/or RAM alongside your CPU, however.

Some notes on this re-review

We don’t normally re-review products here at Tom’s Hardware, much less update existing reviews outside of some extraordinary circumstance. We will follow up reviews with additional coverage as needed, but our reviews are as much buying advice at the time they’re written as they are historical context years down the road. Reviews exist in the context in which they’re written.

That’s important because, especially with PC hardware, some good products can become worse over time and bad products can become good over time. Even in this past generation, AMD had several stumbles with Zen 5, which it addressed post-launch through a combination of firmware updates and exposing additional settings in the BIOS. Intel had some major regressions in performance with Arrow Lake, which it partially addressed after release with Core 200S Boost.

These products are better now than they were at launch, but it’s still important to know that they had issues at launch. That’s the function of our reviews. They’re a snapshot of how a particular component performs and compares to the rest of the market at a certain point in time. Our list of the best CPUs for gaming and CPU benchmark hierarchy pagesare where you’ll find the consistent updates on which chips are best at any given time.

That preamble is to say that this re-review of the Ryzen 7 5800X3D does not replace our original review, which is why this is a separate piece of content and not merely an update. We’re re-reviewing the chip because AMD is re-releasing it, and we need to compare the chip to the current market it exists in.

That market includes high memory prices, which is a driving force behind the re-release of the Ryzen 7 5800X3D in the first place. We’re paying especially close attention to memory in this review, both in terms of price and performance. However, we’ve also brought some price-competitive DDR5 chips into the mix, including some of AMD’s own CPUs.

Finally, we’re reviewing the original Ryzen 7 5800X3D here. AMD says that the new 10th Anniversary Edition should be identical to the original model, but it’s using a slightly different bonding process, which could have a minor impact on power and thermals, in particular. We’ll be getting a 10th Anniversary Edition into the lab in order to find out, but we don’t expect major performance differences between the original and re-release versions.

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D specifications and pricing

It’s difficult to evaluate the specs of the Ryzen 7 5800X3D given the current market, so this is a refresher of what the processor offers and how it compares to some of the current options featured in our test suite. It’s an eight-core / 16-thread chip sporting AMD’s Zen 3 architecture, and it boosts up to 4.5 GHz, with a base clock of 3.4 GHz.

The chip is fabricated on TSMC’s 7nm FinFET process, with GlobalFoundries stepping in to fab the I/O die on its 12nm process. Of course, the main draw of the CPU is the 64MB chunk of SRAM that’s bonded to the compute die, giving the processor access to a total of 96MB of L3 cache.

In recent years, we’ve seen both AMD and Intel increase cache sizes broadly, not just on X3D CPUs. For instance, the Ryzen 7 9700X has the same 32MB of on-board L3 that we can see all the way back to Zen 3, but it has double the L2 cache. Intel has traditionally split L2 and L3 more evenly, and we’ve seen an increase in both with Arrow Lake and Arrow Lake Refresh.

Still, the huge boost in L3 helps a lot here. It comes with some thermal trade-offs, however. Although the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is a very efficient CPU, it also has careful power management. The SRAM sits on top of the compute die, insulating the cores from the IHS. This thermal design means the Ryzen 7 5800X3D has relatively low peak clock speeds out of the box, and it doesn’t officially support AMD’s Precision Boost Overdrive.

AMD has addressed that issue in newer X3D chips, riding the efficiency of Zen 4 with the Ryzen 7 7800X3D and moving to a new bonding process that situates the SRAM below the compute die with the Ryzen 7 9800X3D.

• MORE: Best CPU for gaming
• MORE: CPU Benchmark Hierarchy
• MORE: Intel vs AMD
• MORE: How to Overclock a CPU

Although the Ryzen 7 5800X3D was a revelation when it first released, it’s important to remember that it wasn’t leagues faster than Intel’s competing Alder Lake chips, at least not on the level of the 30%+ delta we see today with Arrow Lake and the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. The pedigree that 3D V-Cache has built comes in part from the newer X3D chips, and that’s clear when looking back at the Ryzen 7 5800X3D.

Even more clear is the split between DDR4 and DDR5. Now that we have Raptor Lake (and Refresh) as a comparison point, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D positions itself as the peak of what DDR4 platforms are capable of in games. It’s marginally faster than the Core i7-13700K and Core i7-14700K with DDR4 memory, 17% ahead of the Core i7-12700K with DDR4, and even 4.5% ahead of the Core i7-12700K with DDR5.

This wall that you can see, around 145 fps in our geomean, directly translates into a handful of the games we tested. Especially among the newer titles in our suite, simply moving to DDR5 memory results in more than a 31% increase in performance on the same CPU. That led to a handful of situations where both Raptor Lake CPUs perform worse than the Ryzen 7 5800X3D with DDR4, but offer double-digit improvements with DDR5.

Based on our RAM price tracker, a 32GB kit of DDR5-6000 runs between $400 and $450 currently, while a 32GB kit of DDR4-3200 will run you between $200 and $250. There are plenty of exceptions, for better and worse, but we’re going to call the price difference between DDR4 and DDR5, right now, about $200.

Establishing that number is important because of one CPU: AMD’s own Ryzen 5 7600X3D. It’s on the AM5 platform and requires DDR5, but it’s also $230, $120 less than what AMD is re-releasing the Ryzen 7 5800X3D at. Assuming our lowest RAM prices, that means the Ryzen 5 7600X3D is around 14% more expensive than the Ryzen 7 5800X3D when memory is brought into the price. But the Ryzen 5 7600X3D is also 18% more performant.

That’s the biggest hurdle standing in the way of the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. Even if you already have DDR4 memory, the Ryzen 5 7600X3D and 16GB of DDR5-6000 is only around $80 more expensive, and much more performant. Plus, it gets you on an AM5 platform, setting up cheaper future upgrades (AMD says AM5 will receive support through at least 2029).

In Intel’s camp, the two Raptor Lake chips with DDR4 run up against a similar wall as the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, but offer around a 15% jump with DDR5. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D still makes sense if you already have an AM4 board. However, if you have to buy a motherboard, the Raptor Lake chips offer similar gaming performance with DDR4 and much better application performance, which we’ll get to next.

Elsewhere, there aren’t a lot of surprises. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D is as efficient as ever, drawing just 77.5W on average in our testing. AMD has pushed efficiency even further now, but it’s remarkable to see the Ryzen 7 5800X3D offering similar performance as the Core i7-14700K with DDR4, while consuming half the power.

We also have our value geomean here, which is deceptive. Obviously the price of memory is a huge influence here, not only on total platform cost, but also on performance. The value geomean here just represents a true CPU-to-CPU comparison of value, devoid of RAM context.

007 First Light Benchmarks

The first game in our suite is the newest, which is 007 First Light. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D surprisingly struggles in this title, which is strange given how well IO Interactive’s previous title, Hitman 3, took to 3D V-Cache CPUs. Still, the Raptor Lake chips are ahead here, even with DDR4, and they claim top slots with DDR5.

Baldur’s Gate 3 Benchmarks

Baldur’s Gate 3 favors X3D chips, which is clear based on the fact that the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is just a touch behind the much newer Ryzen 7 9700X. The 5800X3D is also around 11% faster than the Raptor Lake chips with DDR4 memory. However, the Raptor Lake chips with DDR5 are about 20% faster than the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, while the Ryzen 5 7600X3D is around 35% faster.

Crimson Desert Benchmarks

In Crimson Desert, the 5800X3D outpaces the Raptor Lake competition by a few frames, but this game clearly favors faster memory. It also scales oddly well on Raptor Lake chips, as evidenced by the fact that the Core i7-14700K outclasses the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus.

Counter-Strike 2 Benchmarks

Counter-Strike 2 is more competitive, with only the Ryzen 7 7800X3D offering a clear lead above the rest of the pack. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D is marginally ahead of the Raptor Lake chips with DDR4 here, and even moving to DDR5 doesn’t offer a significant improvement.

Cyberpunk 2077 Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077 is another clear example of the memory divide that’s growing between DDR4 and DDR5. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D tops the DDR4 rankings by a few frames, but moving to DDR5 on Raptor Lake offers roughly a 15% performance jump.

Doom: The Dark Ages Benchmarks

When we brought up a 31% gap in DDR4 and DDR5 performance earlier, we were referring to Doom: The Dark Ages. This is a fairly recent game that’s clearly designed with DDR5 in mind. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D does surprisingly well, though, offering a 10.8% jump over the Raptor Lake competition with DDR4.

F1 24 Benchmarks

F1 2024 slants heavily toward AMD processors, and it’s a game that scales well with 3D V-Cache. Here, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is around 5% faster than the Core i7-14700K with DDR5, and 13% faster with DDR4. The Ryzen 5 7600X3D spoils the fun a bit, though, offering a solid 10% jump over the 5800X3D.

Far Cry 6 Benchmarks

Final Fantasy XIV Benchmarks

Final Fantasy XIV scales well with X3D chips, with the three 3D V-Cache CPUs in our test pool topping the rankings. The 5800X3D takes a clear backseat to the DDR5 CPUs, but it still manages a solid 6.6% improvement over the Core i7-14700K with DDR5 and a 16% jump with DDR4.

Flight Simulator 2024 Benchmarks

Flight Simulator 24 leans back toward Intel, with the 5800X3D only managing to outclass the Core i7-12700K with DDR4. In this game, the Ryzen 5 7600X3D is around 18% faster, while the Core i7-14700K is 11% faster, even with DDR4.

Hogwarts Legacy Benchmarks

We can see a similar situation in Hogwarts Legacy, with the Core i7-14700K paired with DDR4 outpacing the Ryzen 7 5800X3D by about 12%. The Ryzen 5 7600X3D, meanwhile, is more than 20% ahead, while the Core i7-14700K with DDR5 marks a 25% lead.

Marvel Rivals Benchmarks

Marvel Rivals is an Unreal Engine 5 game, and it’s mostly bound by the GPU, which explains the stair-step pattern you can see in our data. We can see a clear divide between DDR4 and DDR5 platforms here, with even the Ryzen 5 7600X offering superior performance.

Minecraft RTX Benchmarks

Intel struggles in Minecraft, while X3D chips run away with performance. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D ends up in the middle of the pack, offering a clear buff of around 18% over the Raptor Lake competition but falling short of even AMD’s weaker DDR5 options.

Spider-Man 2 Benchmarks

Starfield Benchmarks

The Last of Us Part One Benchmarks

• MORE: Best CPU for gaming
• MORE: CPU Benchmark Hierarchy
• MORE: Intel vs AMD
• MORE: How to Overclock a CPU

The Ryzen 7 5800X3D was a weak CPU for productivity when it was released, and it hasn’t aged particularly well since then on that front. The clock speed is limited compared to non-X3D Zen 3 chips. Add to that the limitations of DDR4 platforms more broadly in non-gaming applications, and it's clear the 5800X3D was never destined for high marks here.

Even compared to the Ryzen 5 7600X3D, the 5800X3D is only 4.6% faster, which is bad considering the latter CPU has access to 33% more threads. Intel’s hybrid architecture boosts core counts, allowing Team Blue to dominate the top of our multithreaded performance rankings.

The CPU to call out here is the Core i7-14700K, particularly paired with DDR4 memory. It’s more than twice as fast as the 5800X3D in our multithreaded geomean, while offering similar gaming performance. Again, we can see this dilemma for the 5800X3D, where the 14700K is a better all-around CPU with DDR4, while the Ryzen 5 7600X3D is a superior DDR5 CPU for not much more money (even considering the price of DDR5).

Turning to single-threaded performance, the playing field levels out, short of the 5800X3D, which even loses out to the Ryzen 7 5700X due to its limited clock speed (the 5700X boosts 100 MHz higher).

Rendering Benchmarks

Rendering apps factor heavily in our overall multithreaded geomean, so the individual results here largely mirror what you can see in the geomean above. In Cinebench 2024, the Core i7-14700K with DDR4 still offers more than double the performance of the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, and it pushes higher with DDR5. We can see a similar situation in the newer Cinebench 2026.

Single-core results are especially weak considering the Ryzen 7 5800X3D’s limited boost potential. DDR5 isn’t much of a factor here. Although we can see some scaling on the Raptor Lake platforms when moving to DDR5, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is limited in rendering apps, even by DDR4 standards.

Blender shows similar disparities, with the six-core Ryzen 5 7600X3D largely matching the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, despite sporting a 33% reduction in thread count.

The Ryzen 7 5800X3D is a gaming CPU, pure and simple, so we never expected any miracles here. However, the Ryzen 5 7600X3D is offering comparable performance on a DDR5 platform for less money, while shooting ahead in games. And the Core i7-14700K offers much better productivity performance and comparable gaming performance, even when paired with DDR4.

Encoding Benchmarks

Encoding is similarly a major factor in our geomean, though with a more even split between lightly- and heavily-threaded workloads. Starting with the latter, Handbrake is an all-out workload for any consumer CPU that leans on high core counts, power limits, and clock speeds. With an x265 10-bit encode, even the Core i7-12700K with DDR4 is 39% ahead of the 5800X3D, while the Core i7-14700K with DDR4 shoots ahead, scoring 82% lead. AV1 and X264 show similar gaps.

The LAME audio encoder provides a closer look at single-threaded encoding workloads, and once again, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D struggles. It was the worst performer in the test pool running a standard LAME encode, and the gap between it and the more performant options in our test pool only grows in the extended run.

Creator App Benchmarks

Perhaps the biggest area of crosstalk with gaming is creator applications. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D is a bit more impressive here compared to our rendering and encoding workloads, often matching the Core i7-12700K with DDR4 memory. Still, it ends up at the bottom of our rankings, with newer Raptor Lake and DDR5 CPUs offering better performance.

Photoshop is an app that leans toward AMD chips, though that’s mainly with newer Zen 5 chips. For the 5800X3D, the Core i7-14700K offers a 10% performance jump with DDR4. Things are a bit more competitive in Premiere Pro, with the limitation of DDR4 platforms becoming abundantly clear in our data.

Outside of the Adobe suite, we have DaVinci Resolve, which isn’t as lopsided as Photoshop with recent AMD CPUs. Here, even DDR4 Raptor Lake options are near the top of the chart. The 5800X3D secures a minor win over the 7600X3D and 5700X, but not by a meaningful margin.

Finally, After Effects offers a look at VFX performance. AMD’s 5800X3D especially struggles here, with the Core i7-12700K with DDR4 offering a 13% boost in overall performance. With DDR5, that lead jumps to 22.9%.

Web and Office Benchmarks

In lighter web and office workloads, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D still struggles. Most basic productivity and web applications are lightly-threaded, so it makes sense to see the 5800X3D would fall below the marks we can see in creator apps. Across all of the workloads here, the 5800X3D is either at the bottom of the pile or just narrowly outclasses the 5700X.

That doesn’t mean you’ll run into major performance issues. The workloads here are relatively light, and they’re suitable for far weaker CPUs than the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. We’re mainly looking at general application performance for browsers and lightly-threaded apps here, which is an area where the 5800X3D struggles.

Chess Engines, Compilation, Compression, AVX, and Other Benchmarks

Finally, we have a range of benchmarks examining code compilation, chess engines, database workloads, and far more. The 5800X3D is a gaming CPU, and these workloads are highly targeted at specific applications. There are some workloads where the 5800X3D shines, such as the ebizzy web server test, SQLite database test, and Linpack. However, it mostly lands at the bottom of the pile when looking at workloads more broadly.

We’ve certainly seen a benefit from a larger L3 cache for specialized workloads (see our Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 review for more), but that’s not the draw here. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D is weak in most productivity apps, so unless you plan on running a server and somehow gaming on the same machine, I wouldn’t weigh these results too heavily.

• MORE: Best CPU for gaming
• MORE: CPU Benchmark Hierarchy
• MORE: Intel vs AMD
• MORE: How to Overclock a CPU

AMD’s X3D CPUs are known for their efficiency, and although those efficiency gains mainly show up with the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, the 5800X3D is no slouch. Power is carefully limited on the chip, with it peaking at just 119W in our y-cruncher test. In the same test, the Core i7-14700K drew 335W.

Y-cruncher leverages AVX instructions, pushing the Ryzen 7 5800X3D to consume more power compared to the 7800X3D. In an all-out, non-AVX workload like Cinebench 2024, the two CPUs are in lockstep. Again, we can see the Raptor Lake competition dancing with 300W across configurations.

Blender and Handbrake tell a similar story, but efficiency is what’s important here, given how broad the performance window is for the chips in our test pool (particularly in applications). The 5800X3D is much more efficient than the 13700K and 14700K. The margins are also narrower than raw power consumption.

The efficiency picture is clearer with a scatterplot, where we can see a clear separation between the AMD and Intel chips in our test pool. Short of the Core Ultra 270K Plus, there’s a compromise. AMD’s options are much less performant but consume far less power, while Intel's options are generally the opposite.

One upside of the 5800X3D, in particular, is its low idle power consumption. With Zen 4 and Zen 5, we saw a massive increase in power consumption in both idle and active idle (YouTube playback) scenarios. With both the Zen 3 chips in our test pool, we can see a return to single-digit power draw under idle circumstances.

Test Setup

We try to minimize the differences between our test platforms to keep our results consistent, which is especially important here given that we used so many different platforms. Even with big differences, we used the same OS image that’s specifically tailored for testing and frozen to avoid updates skewing our results as we test.

In addition to standardising our OS, we standardise our BIOS settings. We test with XMP/EXPO enabled on memory kits that we’ve validated for stability on the platforms we use. We also disable VBS in the BIOS and turn on ReBAR.

Modern AMD and Intel CPUs come with sophisticated boosting algorithms, but they aren’t always covered by warranty. AMD doesn’t cover PBO, for instance, and Intel doesn’t warranty the “Extreme” power profile that’s common on motherboards. Because of the lack of warranty coverage, we test with PBO disabled and Intel’s power profile set at its default settings.

• MORE: Best CPU for gaming
• MORE: CPU Benchmark Hierarchy
• MORE: Intel vs AMD
• MORE: How to Overclock a CPU

At $350, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D really only makes sense if you already have an AM4 motherboard and DDR4 memory to go along with it. That’s not a small audience, especially considering the relatively short time the original Ryzen 7 5800X3D was available on the market. But if you need to buy a motherboard and/or memory for your upgrade, there are better options at this price.

The 5800X3D re-release is a victim of poor pricing. The chip taps out DDR4 platforms in gaming performance, but we’re closing in on half a decade with mainstream DDR5 platforms, and we’ve seen much more powerful CPUs in that time. And yet, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D’s price hasn’t moved significantly away from its original $450 MSRP.

If RAM prices weren’t out of control, a $350 price tag on the Ryzen 7 5800X3D would look insane given the current options around that price. As I’m writing this, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is on sale for less than $350. And even considering current RAM prices, the Core i7-14700K and Ryzen 5 7600X3D are compelling alternatives.

On the productivity front, the Core i7-14700K is a clear winner, even with DDR4 memory. There are some titles where the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is faster than the Core i7-14700K is when paired with DDR4. But overall, they offer similar gaming performance. Especially now that AMD has turned its attention to AM5, the Core i7-14700K is a better all-around option if you don’t already have an AM4 motherboard.

Although AMD almost always comes out on top with platform longevity, Intel is surprisingly ahead in that regard in the Ryzen 7 5800X3D versus Core i7-14700K matchup. Intel is reportedly set to launch Raptor Lake Next on the LGA 1700 socket next year, though I suspect any performance benefits that come along with it will require an upgrade to DDR5.

On the gaming front, the Ryzen 5 7600X3D does a lot of work. It requires DDR5, but that’s partially offset by the fact that it’s $120 cheaper than the 5800X3D. Factoring in RAM or not, spending a bit more on the Ryzen 5 7600X3D not only nets you much higher performance in games, it also gives you an AM5 platform that you can easily upgrade in the future.

That doesn’t discredit the island that AM4 users are currently on. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D left the market fairly quickly, and given the popularity of AM4, it stands to reason that there’s a large group of people for whom the 5800X3D is a significant upgrade. For that group, it’s the CPU of legend you’ve heard so much about. But if you’re planning on buying a motherboard and/or RAM with your new CPU, shop around a bit more.

• MORE: Best CPU for gaming
• MORE: CPU Benchmark Hierarchy
• MORE: Intel vs AMD
• MORE: How to Overclock a CPU

Asus has started rolling out beta BIOS updates that restore Transparent Secure Memory Encryption (TSME) support to several AM5 motherboards, making it one of the first board vendors to implement AMD’s promised fix after the company was criticized for quietly removing the feature from non-Pro Ryzen CPUs.

According to VideoCardz, the beta BIOS files — which cover several ROG Crosshair, ROG Strix, TUF Gaming, and ProArt boards based on AMD’s X870, B850, and X670 chipsets — were reportedly shared through the ASUS ROG forum by overclocker SAFEDISK and include support for “GNR Transparent Secure Memory Encryption,” with GNR referring to Granite Ridge, AMD’s Ryzen 9000 desktop CPU family.

The BIOS updates are based on AGESA ComboAM5 PI 1.3.0.1b Patch A and appear to restore TSME support for non-Pro Ryzen 9000 processors earlier than AMD’s previously stated July timeline. X870 boards mostly move to BIOS 2401; B850 boards move to BIOS 1686; and X670 boards move to BIOS 3901 or 3886, depending on the model.

AMD officially confirmed to Tom's Hardware last week that it will reinstate memory encryption on Ryzen 9000 CPUs via a BIOS update, following “valuable community feedback.” AMD users had strongly expressed disapproval after the company silently removed TSME support from Non-Pro CPUs. TSME is a security feature that protects CPUs against physical exploits by encrypting the data stored in memory, making it unusable to physical attackers.

A user discovered that the feature was no longer available on his Ryzen 7 9700X system, even though it was enabled in the BIOS. Further testing involving MSI showed that consumer Ryzen chips could report TSME support under older firmware, but not after a newer AGESA update, while Ryzen Pro processors continued to support it. After countless reactions, AMD moved to fix the issue, setting July as the timeline for reinstating the feature via a BIOS update.

The Asus update now suggests the fix is beginning to arrive earlier than AMD’s July timeline, positioning the company as one of the first board makers to package the reinstatement into actual motherboard firmware. However, this is not yet the broad, stable rollout most users will be waiting for. The files are beta BIOS releases shared through the ASUS ROG forum, so users who specifically need TSME may want to track them closely, while anyone running a production or stability-critical system should probably wait for final BIOS builds.

Unless you have several extra hundred dollars to burn, it’s virtually impossible to build a PC right now, even as Prime Day deals start rolling out. You’ll spend more than twice as much (sometimes three times as much) on a kit of DDR5 memory as you would just a year ago, and SSD prices have shot up so much that a decent NVMe drive can rival the price of a graphics card. The key to skirting the worst part of these price hikes is to shop for bundles.

If you regularly browse Tom’s Hardware, you’ve probably seen us cover bundle deals before. We’ve seen a massive increase in their availability and discount rate over the past few months, specifically when a CPU and motherboard are bundled with RAM and/or an SSD. That isn’t an accident. It’s a concentrated effort by retailers, motherboard vendors, and CPU brands to move product in a time when RAM prices have hamstrung the consumer market.

Those bundles are starting to proliferate online. Originally starting at Newegg online and Micro Center in-store, we’ve seen an uptick in the number of bundles available just about everywhere. Some of these bundles will unlock a reasonable price for building a rig. Others offer little more than some pocket change for the trouble of shelling out money at inflated prices. We’re going to help you separate the wheat from the chaff.

We’re going to run down a few bundle deals that are live for Prime Day to kickstart your next build, as well as provide a bit of context on why we’re seeing so many bundles and why the discounts on them are so high. Our focus here is DDR5, as that’s the biggest hurdle you need to overcome when building a new PC right now. DDR4 bundles are available, as well, though much of the focus is on newer platforms.

Bundle deals typically sell out quickly. We will try to keep this list updated with new bundles as we go throughout Prime Day, so check back throughout the week for fresh deals.

A midrange DDR5 bundle with the Ryzen 5 9600X and 1TB of storage for $635

If you want to get started on a DDR5 build, this bundle from Newegg has everything you need. It includes the Ryzen 5 9600X at the heart of the machine with six Zen 5 cores and 12 threads, alongside a 16GB kit of Team Group memory clocked at DDR5-6000 and a 1TB Patriot P410 SSD. The motherboard is a MSI Pro B850-S, which is decent considering the entry-level design.

The motherboard is a full ATX design, so it should fit in most PC cases outside of small form factor options. I/O is fairly limited, but you still get an internal USB-C header, along with two USB 3.2 Gen 1 ports, a USB-C 3.2 Gen 1 port, four USB 3.0 ports, and 2.5Gb Ethernet. The board also has two M.2 slots attached, along with a block of four SATA 6 Gb connectors for additional storage.

As for the Ryzen 5 9600X and Teamgroupe memory, it’s all you need to get started with a modern gaming rig. 32GB of memory is ideal, but the 16GB kit included in this bundle only occupies two of the four DIMM slots on our motherboard, so sizing up down the line is always an option. The Patriot P410 is a PCIe 4.0 SSD and it comes with 1TB of storage, giving you plenty of room to install your OS and apps.

For a kicker, Newegg includes a free $80 Cooler Master Elite Liquid 240 all-in-one liquid cooler with the bundle. Although the discount may not seem like much, this bundle essentially cuts the DDR5 price down to normal levels while maintaining the list price of the Ryzen 5 9600X and Gigabyte motherboard.

A high-end Intel build with the 270K Plus for under $800

For most builds, 32GB of DDR5 memory is the sweet spot, so it’s no surprise that we see bigger discounts on bundles that include 32GB. Such is the case with this Core Ultra 7 270K Plus bundle, which includes the chip, a midrange Z890 motherboard from ASRock, and 32GB of G.Skill Trident Z5 memory at DDR5-6000. The bundle is 22% off, but that really sells short how good of a deal it is; the memory alone normally costs $510. That extra $260 buys you a Z890 motherboard and Intel’s most impressive CPU to date.

Although Arrow Lake has earned rightful criticism, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is among the best CPUs for gaming. It’s one of Intel’s two ‘Arrow Lake Refresh’ CPUs that come with massive performance improvements over the base range. Even at its affordable price, the 270K Plus is Intel’s fastest productivity CPU around, and it’s just a hair short of outclassing the Core i9-14900K in games.

The motherboard is ASRock’s Z890 Pro RS, which critically includes a Z-series chipset, allowing you to overclock the 270K Plus. It comes with dual Thunderbolt 4 ports, along with two USB 3.2 Gen 1 ports and four USB 2.0 ports. There are four M.2 slots on board, one of which supports PCIe 5.0 x4. Two others support PCIe 4.0, while the last one can operate in either PCIe 4.0 x4 or SATA3 modes. This particular board lacks Wi-Fi (and by extension Bluetooth), so you’ll need to purchase a separate add-in card.

Finally, the Tridzen Z5 RGB memory. This is the memory we use on our own CPU test beds here at Tom’s Hardware, and it’s on the Qualified Vendor List (QVL) of most major motherboards (including the board included here).

Top-shelf gaming performance with the Ryzen 7 7800X3D for $900

The gold standard for a gaming PC these days is one of AMD’s 3D V-Cache CPUs, and in particular, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D or 9800X3D, AMD’s most recent eight-core X3D parts. This bundle includes the last-gen 7800X3D, which, despite being slower than the 9800X3D, still beats everything else in our CPU benchmark hierarchy. Alongside the chip is a 342GB of Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR5-6000 memory and an MSI MAG X870 Tomahawk Wi-Fi motherboard.

Despite coming from the Tomahawk range, this MSI motherboard is solid. It includes Wi-Fi 7 and 5Gb LAN for networking, along with a PCIE 5.0 x16 slot for your GPU and two Gen5 M.2 slots (alongside two Gen4 slots). Around the back, you get two USB 3.2 Gen 2 ports, three USB 3.2 Gen 1 ports, and four USB 2.0 ports, alongside dual 40Gb USB-C connections.

For the memory, we’ve found that 6000 MT/s is the sweet spot for Ryzen CPUs, and even then, X3D chips don’t need super-fast memory. The kit here is a 2 x 16GB kit, giving you two free DIMM slots to expand in the future.

Why bundle deals are so popular, and why we’re seeing more of them

Most bundle deals aren’t anything to get excited about. How they typically work is that a retailer wants to move more product, and in order to do so, they offer a small discount on multiple products in a bundle. This move is a major factor in why physical Micro Center locations are still so popular; bundle a CPU and motherboard together, and get them for $20 or $30 off. What we’re seeing today is different.

Outside of retailer bundles, we occasionally see bundles that are subsidized elsewhere. Maybe Intel or AMD, or a motherboard vendor, is running a promotion, and so they offer a rebate on components bundled on sale to a retailer. With current RAM and SSD prices, we’re seeing everyone pitch in.

Vendors tell Tom’s Hardware that motherboard sales have been hit hard by RAM prices, and industry reports suggest sales have dropped as much as 37% at some retailers. Motherboard vendors are in a unique position. Unlike the GPU shortages of years past, motherboards are downstream from RAM. If you can’t afford RAM, you’re probably not going to buy a new CPU or motherboard, even if the prices on those components are good (and they are right now).

So, AMD and Intel, alongside motherboard vendors and retailers, are working together to subsidize these kits. Module houses (the companies that package memory) might be kicking in, as well, but it’s hard to say. Most companies I’ve asked tell me that the specific details of each deal are different, so it’s some combination of all these companies working together on bundle deals.

Regardless, it’s in the interest of AMD, Intel, motherboard vendors, retailers, and, to a lesser degree, even module houses, to get prices down. As long as they’re inflated, the downstream sales impact hits all of them, and bundles allow all of these companies to split the burden of subsidizing high RAM prices.

If you're a gamer, the best CPU you can buy is going to come from AMD right now, and the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D is going to be on your shortlist. While it isn't technically the most powerful chip on the market anymore, the 9800X3D is still an absolute powerhouse performer and our top pick for best gaming CPU in 2026, and it's just hit its lowest ever price in the UK on Amazon, costing just £339.99.

● Check out this deal on Amazon

The data from Camelcamelcamel confirms what we know about Amazon's price, and an early check across the other big tech retailers in the UK points to a minimum £30 price drop compared to the cost elsewhere. There are few CPUs that offer the reputation that the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D. Until very recently, it was the fastest CPU for gaming in the world, and it's still our best pick overall. This 8-core, 16-thread processor features AMD's newest Zen 5 architecture and comes equipped with a boost clock speed of up to 5.2 GHz.

The performance upgrade, however, is really noticeable in one area: the cache. These 3D V-cache chips feature a boosted 96MB L3 cache capacity, stacked beneath the CPU cores, closer to the integrated heat spreader on a reconfigured die. For gaming, that means that it doesn't need to drop down and rely on the slower system RAM, reducing latency and ensuring much higher frame rates in-game.

The 9800X3D comes fully unlocked, making overclocking a possibility, something which wasn't available on earlier 3D V-cache chips. That said, base performance is pretty stellar on its own, and there really isn't a more efficient gaming CPU on the market at this level.

You aren't having to juice for power here. It offers the best performance per watt of any gaming CPU on sale, besting newer upgrades like the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D. Our CPU benchmark data confirms that, showing that the FPS difference between the earlier AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D and newer Ryzen 7 9850X3D sits at only 3% at 1080p. You're probably running your games at 1440p or 4K with a chip like this one, too, which will close the gap even further.

Pair the 9800X3D with a modern GPU, and you won't find too many bottlenecks from the CPU end. If you combine it with a top-class option like the RTX 5080 or RTX 5090, however, and it'll smash through anything. High frame rates, high resolutions, even in CPU-heavy games like Cyberpunk 2077. The 96MB of L3 cache will give you the performance upgrade you need to perform at any level.

Another bonus for the 9800X3D is its lifespan. This is a long-term CPU, with performance that sits near the top, and which is very much expected to continue to dominate gaming for years into the future. This is an AMD AM5 processor, too, and that's a platform that AMD has publicly committed to support for several years to come.

The £339.99 sale price for the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D makes it a must-buy if you're due for a CPU upgrade or you're planning a new build. While RAM and SSD prices have shot through the roof in recent months, this 9800X3D deal is an unmissable discount ahead of the Prime Day sales event, and one you'll want to grab quickly before the stock or discount runs dry.

If you're looking for more savings, check out our Best PC Hardware deals for a range of products, or dive deeper into our specialized SSD and Storage Deals, Hard Drive Deals, Gaming Monitor Deals, Graphics Card Deals, Gaming Chair, Best Wi-Fi Routers, Best Motherboard, or CPU Deals pages.

Most all you hear about "running an AI model" involves a GPU of some sort, but not every AI task is suited to that hardware. Smaller models or single-user latency-sensitive operations can benefit from running on the CPU instead, as it avoids the overhead of shuffling data to and from the GPU. There are also many situations where there is no GPU available to begin with, or it's a meek integrated affair with limited capabilities. Intel and AMD have recently released the full specification for the ACE CPU extensions that make it easier and more power-efficient to run the aforementioned AI tasks on x86 processors.

ACE comes in by offering a technical standard that leverages the existing AVX10 registers but adds silicon dedicated to matrix multiplication. This brings multiple benefits, but the key advantages are better power efficiency, easier development and optimization, and leveraging AVX's 512-bit inputs. The latter makes for easy integration with existing designs by eschewing the need for ACE-specific inputs.

Matrix multiplication is the cornerstone of AI workloads: take a table of numbers, and run a multiplication-addition loop over the whole thing. This has always been possible with most any CPU, though at limited speed. Even today, running these loops uses a lot of power, even when leveraging x86's AVX10 multiply-accumulate instructions — something that's technically a hack, as AVX wasn't designed with 2D matrix operations multiplication in mind.

For the same number of input vectors, ACE can perform 16x as many operations, compared to AVX10. Note this doesn't necessarily mean a 16x speedup, as that will depend on each individual implementation, but it's reasonable to expect that Intel and AMD will dedicate more silicon to this task in future designs to improve performance. Plus, as each ACE instruction performs more work than its equivalent AVX10 loop, there's less CPU instruction overhead and potentially better RAM bandwidth usage right off the bat.

The benefits go far beyond just using fewer instructions for the same thing. ACE is intended to be implementation-agnostic, meaning that ML frameworks and their underlying libraries (PyTorch, TensorFlow) can just write one code path instead of having multiple variations depending on the underlying hardware and its degree of AVX support.

ACE native supports most every data type used in ML operations (including but not limited to INT8, INT32, FP8, FP16, FP32, BF16), but it also can use Open Compute Project's MX block-scaled formats natively, something that AVX10 does not provide. Developers will also be able to move some NPU-specific workloads back to CPU when they need something done now and fast. In those situations, not having to deal with the fact that each NPU is different is a huge boon, too, as ACE offers a consistent target across x86 hardware.

AMD has told Tom's Hardware that it will reinstate Transparent Secure Memory Encryption (TSME) on desktop Ryzen 9000 processors in July (we have the full statement further below). The feature is branded as Memory Guard for AMD's Ryzen PRO lineup, but it's available on non-PRO CPUs, as well. Earlier this year, AMD quietly removed the feature with AGESA 1.2.7.0, which Ars Technica reported on earlier this week. AMD tells Tom's Hardware that it's bringing TSME back to non-PRO Ryzen 9000 chips "based on valuable community feedback."

TSME is a firmware-level encryption feature for memory. It allows the processor to generate a key in order to encrypt data stored in RAM, serving as a layer of protection against cold boot attacks, where a sudden shutdown can allow a physical attacker to extract sensitive data stored in memory.

According to the Ars Technica report, AMD confirmed TSME support on consumer CPUs as far back as 2020 with the Ryzen 7 3700X. The author of the story, Ben Kilpatrick, discovered TSME's removal after running a security audit on a new machine with the Ryzen 7 9700X. After discovering that TSME was no longer supported, Kilpatrick worked with MSI (his motherboard vendor) to confirm that TSME had previously been supported but was disabled in AGESA 1.2.7.0.

Following the discovery, Kilpatrick raised a bug report on AMD's GitHub repository, where Mario Limonciello, a senior principal software engineer at AMD, eventually responded: “My apologies, but I don’t have any more information to share on this topic."

Without any comment from AMD, it appeared as though the company disabled TSME through firmware on its consumer parts in order to differentiate its PRO lineup. TSME isn't a critical security feature for most consumer desktops, as it protects against attacks where the attacker needs physical access to the device. Still, if it was previously a capability, there's no reason TSME should be disabled through firmware.

Now, AMD has responded to Tom's Hardware with the following statement:

"We take the security of our customers’ data very seriously.

AMD Memory Guard (Transparent Secure Memory Encryption, or TSME) is a hardware-based memory encryption technology available on our Ryzen PRO desktop and mobile processors where supported in silicon. It is a foundational security feature, and we have no plans to remove support from our Ryzen PRO lineup. This commitment holds now and in the future.

Regarding certain non-PRO Ryzen 9000-series desktop processors, a BIOS option to enable Memory Guard was previously available but was removed in a recent update. Based on valuable community feedback, we will reinstate this option in an upcoming BIOS release in July."