Organizer
Gadget news
Intel Core i7-14700K review: salvaging Raptor Lake Refresh with i9-13900K performance
4:00 pm | October 17, 2023

Author: admin | Category: Computers Computing Computing Components Gadgets | Tags: , , , | Comments: Off

Intel Core i7-14700K: One-minute review

The Intel Core i7-14700K is the workhorse CPU in the Intel's 14th generation launch line-up, and like any good workhorse, it's going to be the one to do the heavy lifting for this generation of processors. Fortunately for Intel, the Core i7-14700K succeeds in keeping Raptor Lake Refresh from being completely forgettable.

Of all the chips launched on October 17, 2023, the Core i7-14700K is the only one to get a substantive spec upgrade over its predecessor as well as a slight cut in price to just $409 (about £325/AU$595), which is $10 less than the Intel Core i7-13700K it replaces.

So what do you get for $10 less? Gen-on-gen, you don't get a whole lot of improvement (about 6% better performance overall compared to the 13700K), but that figure can be deceiving, since the Core i7-13700K was at the top of our best processor list for a reason. 

With the 13700K's performance being within striking distance of the Intel Core i9-13900K, that 6% improvement for the 14700K effectively closes the gap, putting the 14700K within just 3% of the 13900K overall, and even allowing it to pull ahead in average gaming performance, losing out to only the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D.

Fortunately for Intel, the Core i7-14700K succeeds in keeping Raptor Lake Refresh from being completely forgetable.

In terms of productivity and general performance, the Core i7-14700K shines as well, going toe to toe with the best AMD processors like the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, giving it a very strong claim on being the best Intel processor processor for most people.

Given its excellent mix of performance and price, the Intel Core i7-14700K could very well be the last Intel chip of the LGA 1700 epoch that anyone should consider buying, especially if you're coming from a 12th-gen chip. 

With the Core i9-13900K outperforming the Intel Core i9-12900K by as much as 25% in some workloads, someone coming off an i9-12900K or lower will find it hard to believe that an i7 could perform this well, but that's where we're at. And with the i7-14700K coming in about 30% cheaper than the Intel Core i9-14900K, while still managing to come remarkably close in terms of its performance, the Intel Core i7-14700K is the Raptor Lake Refresh chip to buy if you're going to buy one at all.

An Intel Core i7-14700K with its promotional packaging

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Intel Core i7-14700K: Price & availability

  • How much does it cost? US MSRP $409 (about £325/AU$595)
  • When is it out? October 17, 2023
  • Where can you get it? You can get it in the US, UK, and Australia

The Intel Core i7-14700K is available on October 17, 2023, with a US MSRP of $409 (about £325/AU$595), which is a slight decrease from its predecessor's MSRP of $419 (about £335/AU$610), and about 31% lower than the Intel Core i9-14900K and 32% percent lower than the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X. 

It's also cheaper than the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D, and just $10 more expensive than the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X, putting it very competitively priced against processors in its class.

The comparisons against the Core i9 and Ryzen 9 are far more relevant, however, since these are the chips that the Core i7-14700K are competing against in terms of performance, and in that regard, the Intel Core i7-14700K is arguably the best value among consumer processors currently on the market.

  • Price score: 4 / 5

Intel Core i7-14700K: Specs & features

  • Four additional E-Cores
  • Slightly faster clock speeds
  • Increased Cache
  • Discrete Wi-Fi 7 and Thunderbolt 5 support

The Intel Core i7-14700K is the only processor from Intel's Raptor Lake Refresh launch line-up to get a meaningful spec upgrade.

Rather than the eight performance and eight efficiency cores like the i7-13700K, the i7-14700K comes with eight performance cores and 12 efficiency cores, all running with a slightly higher turbo boost clock for extra performance. The i7-14700K also has something called Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0, which is a mouthful but also gives the best performing P-core an extra bump up to 5.6GHz so long as the processor is within power and thermal limits.

The increased core count also adds 7MB of additional L2 cache for the efficiency cores to use, further improving their performance over the 13700K's, as well as four additional processing threads for improved multitasking.

It has the same TDP of 125W and same Max Turbo Power rating of 253W as the 13700K, with the latter being the upper power limit of sustained (greater than one second) power draw for the processor. This ceiling can be breached, however, and processing cores can draw much more power in bursts as long as 10ms when necessary.

There is also support for discrete Wi-Fi 7 and Bluetooth 5.4 connectivity, as well as discrete Thunderbolt 5 wired connections, so there is a decent bit of future proofing in its specs.

  • Chipset & features score: 4 / 5

An Intel Core i7-14700K slotted into a motherboard

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Intel Core i7-14700K: Performance

  • Outstanding performance on par with the i9-13900K
  • Best gaming performance of any Intel processor
  • More power hungry than predecessor, so also runs hotter

The Intel Core i7-14700K is arguably the best performing midrange processor on the market, coming within striking distance of the Core i9-13900K and Ryzen 9 7950X across most workloads, including very strong multi core performance thanks to the addition of four extra efficiency cores.

Image 1 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 3 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 4 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 5 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 6 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 7 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 8 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 9 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 10 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 11 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 12 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 13 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

The strongest synthetic benchmarks for the 14700K are single core workloads, which puts it effectively level with the Core i9-13900K and often beating the Ryzen 9 7950X and 7950X3D chips handily. 

This translates into better dedicated performance, rather than multitasking, but even there the Core i7-14700K does an admirable just keeping pace with chips with much higher core counts.

Image 1 of 7

Creative benchmarks for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 7

Creative benchmarks for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 3 of 7

Creative benchmarks for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 4 of 7

Creative benchmarks for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 5 of 7

Creative benchmarks for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 6 of 7

Creative benchmarks for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 7 of 7

Creative benchmarks for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

In creative workloads, the 14700K also performs exceptionally well, beating out the 13900K on everything except 3D model rendering, which is something that is rarely given to a CPU to do any when even the best cheap graphics cards can process Blender or V-Ray 5 workloads many times faster than even the best CPU can.

Image 1 of 6

Gaming benchmarks for Intel 14th gen processors

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 6

Gaming benchmarks for Intel 14th gen processors

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 3 of 6

Gaming benchmarks for Intel 14th gen processors

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 4 of 6

Gaming benchmarks for Intel 14th gen processors

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 5 of 6

Gaming benchmarks for Intel 14th gen processors

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 6 of 6

Gaming benchmarks for Intel 14th gen processors

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

In gaming performance, the Core i7-14700K scores a bit of an upset over its launch sibling, the i9-14900K, besting it in gaming performance overall, though it has to be said that it got some help from a ridiculously-high average fps in Total War: Warhammer III's battle benchmark. In most cases, the i7-14700K came up short of the 13900K and 14900K, but not by much.

And while it might be tempting to write off Total War: Warhammer III as an outlier, one of the biggest issues with the Core i9's post-Alder Lake is that they are energy hogs and throttle under load quickly, pretty much by design. 

In games like Total War: Warhammer III where there are a lot of tiny moving parts to keep track of, higher clock speeds don't necessarily help. When turbo clocks kick into high gear and cause throttling, the back-and-forth between throttled and not-throttled can be worse over the course of the benchmark than the cooler but consistent Core i7s, which don't have to constantly ramp up and ramp down. 

So the 14700K isn't as much of an outlier as it looks, especially since the 13700K also excels at Total War: Warhammer III, and it too beats the two Core i9s. Total War: Warhammer III isn't the only game like this, and so there are going to be many instances where the cooler-headed 14700K steadily gets the work done while the hot-headed i9-13900K and 14900K sprint repeatedly, only to effectively tire themselves out for a bit before kicking back up to high gear.

Image 1 of 2

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 2

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

The additional efficiency cores might not draw as much power as the performance cores, but the additional power is still noticeable. The 14700K pulls down nearly 30W more watts than the 13700K, though it is still a far cry from the Core i9-13900K's power usage.

This additional power also means that the Core i7-14700K runs much hotter than its predecessor, maxing out at 100ºC, triggering the CPU to throttle on occasion. This is something that the i7-13700K didn't experience during my testing at all, so you'll need to make sure your cooling solution is up to the task here.

  • Performance: 4.5 / 5

An Intel Core i7-14700K with its promotional packaging

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Intel Core i7-14700K: Verdict

  • Fantastic single-core performance
  • Intel's best gaming processor, and second overall behind the Ryzen 7 7800X3D
  • Best value of any midrange processor
Image 1 of 7

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 7

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 3 of 7

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 4 of 7

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 5 of 7

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 6 of 7

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 7 of 7

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

Ultimately, the Intel Core i7-14700K is the best processor in the Raptor Lake Refresh line-up, offering very competitive performance for a better price than its predecessor and far better one than comparable chips one tier higher in the stack.

It's not without fault, though. It's not that much better than the i7-13700K, so everything I'm saying about the i7-14700K might reasonably apply to its predecessor as well. And honestly, the i7-14700K doesn't have too high a bar to clear to standout from its launch siblings, so it's performance might only look as good in comparison to the i9 and i5 standing behind it.

But, the numbers don't lie, and the Intel Core i7-14700K displays flashes of brilliance that set it apart from its predecessor and vault it into competition with the top-tier of CPUs, and that's quite an achievement independent of how the rest of Raptor Lake Refresh fares. 

A masculine hand holding an Intel Core i7-14700K

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Should you buy the Intel Core i7-14700K?

Buy the Intel Core i7-14700K if...

Don't buy it if...

Also Consider

If my Intel Core i7-14700K review has you considering other options, here are two processors to consider... 

How I tested the Intel Core i7-14700K

  • I spent nearly two weeks testing the Intel Core i7-14700K
  • I ran comparable benchmarks between this chip and rival midrange processors
  • I gamed with this chip extensively
Test System Specs

These are the specs for the test system used for this review:

Intel Motherboard: MSI MPG Z790E Tomahawk Wifi
AMD Motherboard: ASRock X670E Steel Legend
CPU Cooler:
MSI MAG Coreliquid E360 AIO
Memory:
32GB SK Hynix DDR5-4800
SSD: Samsung 990 Pro
PSU: Thermaltake PF3 1050W ATX 3.0
Case: Praxis Wetbench

I spent about two weeks testing the Intel Core i7-14700K and its competition, primarily for productivity work, gaming, and content creation.

I used a standard battery of synthetic benchmarks that tested out the chip's single core, multi core, creative, and productivity performance, as well as built-in gaming benchmarks to measure its gaming chops. 

I then ran the same tests on rival chips from AMD as well as the other 14th-gen chips in the Raptor Lake Refresh launch line-up and 13th-generation Raptor Lake processors. For Intel chips, I used the same motherboard, RAM, SSD, and graphics card to ensure I was isolating just the CPU's performance across every chip. For AMD chips, I used a comparable AM5 motherboard so differences in the motherboard configuration and circuitry are mitigated to the largest extent possible.

I've been testing and reviewing computer hardware for years now, and with an extensive background in computer science, I know processors in and out, and I use that knowledge to ensure every chip is thoroughly tested.

We pride ourselves on our independence and our rigorous review-testing process, offering up long-term attention to the products we review and making sure our reviews are updated and maintained - regardless of when a device was released, if you can still buy it, it's on our radar.

Read more about how we test

First reviewed October 2023

Intel Core i9-14900K review: more of a Raptor Lake overclock than a refresh
4:00 pm |

Author: admin | Category: Computers Computing Computing Components Gadgets | Tags: , , , | Comments: Off

Intel Core i9-14900K: Two-minute review

The Intel Core i9-14900K is a hard chip to justify, which is a weird thing to say about a processor that is arguably the best Intel has ever put out.

With very little fanfare to herald its arrival following the announcement of Intel Meteor Lake at Intel Innovation in September 2023 (and confirmation that Intel Meteor Lake is coming to desktop in 2024), Intel's 14th-generation flagship processor cannot help but draw parallels to the 11th-gen Rocket Lake chips that immediately preceded Intel Alder Lake.

The Core i9-11900K was something of a placeholder in the market until Intel could launch Alder Lake at the end of 2021. Those processors featured a new hybrid architecture and a more advanced 10nm process that helped propel Intel back to the top of our best processor list, despite strong competition from AMD.

With Intel Raptor Lake Refresh, we're back in placeholder territory, unfortunately. The performance gains here are all but non-existent, so we are essentially waiting on Meteor Lake while the i9-14900K absolutely guzzles electricity and runs hot enough to boil water under just about any serious workload with very little extra performance over the Intel Core i9-13900K to justify the upgrade.

The problem for the Core i9-14900K is that you can still get the i9-13900K.

It's not that the Core i9-14900K isn't a great processor; again, it's unquestionably the best Intel processor for the consumer market in terms of performance. It beats every other chip I tested in most categories with the exception of some multitasking workflows and average gaming performance, both of which it comes in as a very close runner-up. On top of that, at $589, it's the same price as the current Intel flagship, the Intel Core i9-13900K (assuming the i9-14900K matches the i9-13900K's £699 / AU$929 sale price in the UK and Australia).

The problem for the Core i9-14900K is two-fold: you can still get the i9-13900K and will be able to for a long while yet at a lower price, and the Intel Core i7-14700K offers performance so close to the 14th-gen flagship at a much lower price that the 14900K looks largely unnecessary by comparison. Essentially, If you've got an i7-13700K or i9-13900K, there's is simply nothing for you here.

If you're on an 11th-gen chip or older, or you've got an AMD Ryzen processor and you're looking to switch, this chip will be the last one to use the LGA 1700 socket, so when Meteor Lake-S comes out in 2024 (or even Lunar Lake-S, due out at the end of 2024 or early 2025), you won't be able to upgrade to that processor with an LGA 1700 motherboard. In other words, upgrading to an LGA 1700 for this chip is strictly a one-shot deal.

The only people who might find this chip worth upgrading to are those currently using a 12th-gen processor who skipped the 13th-gen entirely, or someone using a 13th-gen core i5 who wants that extra bit of performance and doesn't mind dropping $589 on a chip they might be upgrading from again in a year's time, which isn't going to be a whole lot of people. 

Unfortunately, at this price, it'll be better to save your money and wait for Meteor Lake or even Lunar Lake to drop next year and put the $589 you'd spend on this chip towards the new motherboard and CPU cooler you'll need once those chips are launched.

An Intel Core i9-14900K with its promotional packaging

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Intel Core i9-14900K: Price & availability

  • How much does it cost? US MSRP $589 (about £470/AU$855)
  • When is it out? October 17, 2023
  • Where can you get it? You can get it in the US, UK, and Australia

The Intel Core i9-14900K is available as of October 17, 2023, for a US MSRP of $589 (about £470/AU$855), which is the same as the Intel Core i9-13900K it is replacing. We don't have confirmation on UK and Australia pricing yet, though I've asked Intel for clarification and will update this review if and when I hear back from the company. If the 14900K keeps the same UK and Australia pricing as the Core i9-13900K, however, it'll sell for £699/AU$929 in the UK and Australia respectively.

Meanwhile, this is still cheaper than most of AMD's rival chips in this tier, the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, and AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D, with only the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X coming in cheaper than the i9-14900K. 

This does make the Core i9-14900K the better value against these chips, especially given the level of performance on offer, but it's ultimately too close to the 13900K performance-wise to make this price meaningful, as a cheaper 13900K will offer an even better value against AMD's Ryzen 9 lineup.

  • Price score: 3 / 5

A masculine hand holding an Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Intel Core i9-14900K: Specs & features

  • Faster clock speeds than i9-13900K
  • Some additional AI-related features

The Intel Core i9-14900K is the final flagship using Intel's current architecture, so it makes sense that there is very little in the way of innovation over the Intel Core i9-13900K.

Using the same 10nm Intel 7 process node as its predecessor and with the same number of processor cores (8 P-cores/16 E-cores), threads (32), and cache (32MB total L2 cache plus additional 36MB L3 cache), the only real improvement with the 14900K in terms of specs are its faster clock speeds.

All cores get a 0.2GHz increase to their base frequencies, while the P-core turbo boost clock increases to 5.6GHz and the E-core turbo clock bumps up to 4.4GHz from the 13900K's 5.4GHz P-Core turbo clock and 4.3GHz E-core turbo clock.

While those clock speeds are the official max turbo clocks for the two types of cores, the Core i9-14900K and Intel Core i7-14700K have something called Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0, which increases the frequency of the best-performing core in the chip and gives it even more power within the power and thermal limits. That gets the Core i9-14900K up to 5.8GHz turbo clock on specific P-cores while active.

Additionally, an exclusive feature of the Core i9 is an additional Ludicrous-Speed-style boost called Intel Thermal Velocity Boost. This activates if there is still power and thermal headroom on a P-core that is already being boosted by the Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0, and this can push the core as high as 6.0GHz, though these aren't typical operating conditions.

Both of these technologies are present in the 13900K as well, but the 14900K bumps up the maximum clock speeds of these modes slightly, and according to Intel, that 6.0GHz clock speed makes this the world's fastest processor. While that might technically be true, that 6.0GHz is very narrowly used so in practical terms, the P-Core boost clock is what you're going to see almost exclusively under load.

The Core i9-14900K has the same 125W TDP as the 13900K and the same 253W maximum turbo power as well, though power draw in bursts of less than 10ms can go far higher.

If this reads like a Redditor posting about their successful overclocking setup, then you pretty much get what this chip is about. If you're looking for something innovative about this chip, I'll say it again, you're going to have to wait for Meteor Lake.

The Core i9-14900K also has support for discrete Wi-Fi 7 and Bluetooth 5.4 connectivity, as does the rest of the 14th-gen lineup, as well as support for discrete Thunderbolt 5, both of which are still a long way down the road.

The only other thing to note is that there have been some AI-related inclusions that are going to be very specific to AI workloads that almost no one outside of industry and academia is going to be running. If you're hoping for AI-driven innovations for everyday consumers, let's say it once more, with feeling: You're going to have to wait for—

  • Chipset & features score: 3.5 / 5

An Intel Core i9-14900K slotted into a motherboard

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Intel Core i9-14900K: Performance

  • Best-in-class performance, but only by a hair
  • Gets beat by AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D and i7-14700K in gaming performance
  • Runs even hotter than the i9-13900K

If you took any elite athlete who's used to setting records in their sport, sometimes they break their previous record by a lot, and sometimes it's by milliseconds or fractions of an inch. It's less sexy, but it still counts, and that's really what we get here with the Intel i9-14900K.

On pretty much every test I ran on it, the Core i9-14900K edged out its predecessor by single digits, percentage-wise, which is a small enough difference that a background application can fart and cause just enough of a dip in performance that the 14900K ends up losing to the 13900K. 

I ran these tests more times than I can count because I had to be sure that something wasn't secretly messing up my results, and they are what they are. The Core i9-14900K does indeed come out on top, but it really is a game of inches at this point.

Image 1 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 3 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 4 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 5 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 6 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 7 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 8 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 9 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 10 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 11 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 12 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 13 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

Across all synthetic performance and productivity benchmarks, the Core i9-14900K comes out on top, with the notable exception of Geekbench 6.1's multi-core performance test, where the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X scores substantially higher, and the Passmark Performance Test's overall CPU score, which puts the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 9 7950X3D significantly higher. Given that all 16 cores of the 7950X and 7950X3D are full-throttle performance cores, this result isn't surprising.

Other than that though, it's the 14900K all the way, with a 5.6% higher geometric average on single-core performance than the 13900K. For multi-core performance, the 14900K scores a 3.1% better geometric average, and in productivity workloads, it scores a 5.3% better geometric average than its predecessor.

Against the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, the Core i9-14900K scores about 13% higher in single-core performance, about 1% lower in multi-core performance, and 5% better in productivity performance.

Image 1 of 7

Creative benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 7

Creative benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 3 of 7

Creative benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 4 of 7

Creative benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 5 of 7

Creative benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 6 of 7

Creative benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 7 of 7

Creative benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

Creative benchmarks reveal something of a mixed bag for the Core i9-14900K. In all cases, it beats its predecessor by between 2.6% to as much as 10.9%. Against the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and 7950X3D, the Core i9-14900K consistently loses out when it comes to rendering workloads like Blender and V-Ray 5, but beats the two best AMD processors by just as much in photo and video editing. And since 3D rendering is almost leaning heavily on a GPU rather than the CPU, AMD's advantage here is somewhat muted in practice.

Image 1 of 6

Gaming benchmarks for Intel 14th gen processors

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 6

Gaming benchmarks for Intel 14th gen processors

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 3 of 6

Gaming benchmarks for Intel 14th gen processors

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 4 of 6

Gaming benchmarks for Intel 14th gen processors

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 5 of 6

Gaming benchmarks for Intel 14th gen processors

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 6 of 6

Gaming benchmarks for Intel 14th gen processors

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

Gaming is another area where Intel had traditionally done well thanks to its strong single-core performance over AMD, but all that flipped with the introduction of AMD's 3D V-Cache. 

While the Intel Core i9-14900K barely moves the needle from its predecessor's performance, it really doesn't matter, since the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D manages to ultimately score an overall victory and it's not very close. The Core i9-14900K actually manages a tie for fourth place with the Intel Core i7-13700K, with the Core i7-14700K edging it out by about 4 fps on average.

Image 1 of 2

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 2

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

Of course, all this performance requires power, and lots of it. The Core i9-14900K pretty much matched the maximum recorded power draw of the Core i9-13900K, with less of a watt's difference between the two, 351.097W to 351.933, respectively.

The Core i9-14900K still managed to find a way to run hotter than its predecessor, however; something I didn't really think was possible. But there it is, the 14900K maxing out at 105ºC, three degrees hotter than the 13900K's max. It's the hottest I've ever seen a CPU run, and I'm genuinely shocked it was allowed to run so far past its official thermal limit without any overclocking on my part.

  • Performance: 3.5 / 5

A masculine hand holding an Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Intel Core i9-14900K: Verdict

  • The best chip for dedicated performance like video editing and productivity
  • There are better gaming processors out there for cheaper
  • The Intel Core i7-14700K offers a far better value
Image 1 of 7

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 7

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 3 of 7

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 4 of 7

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 5 of 7

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 6 of 7

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 7 of 7

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i9-14900K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

In the final assessment then, the Core i9-14900K does manage to win the day, topping the leaderboard by enough of a margin to be a clear winner, but close enough that it isn't the cleanest of wins. 

Overall, its single-core and productivity performance are its best categories, slightly faltering in creative workloads, and coming up short enough on gaming that it's not the chip I would recommend as a gaming CPU.

Like all Core i9s before it, the 14900K is the worst value of Intel's 14th-gen launch lineup, but it's better than its predecessor for the time being (though that advantage won't last very long at all), and it does manage to be a better value proposition than the Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 9 7950X3D, while matching the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, so all in all, not too bad for an enthusiast chip.

Still, the Intel Core i7-14700K is right there, and its superior balance of price and performance makes the Intel Core i9-14900K a harder chip to recommend than it should be.

Should you buy the Intel Core i9-14900K?

Buy the Intel Core i9-14900K if...

Don't buy it if...

Also Consider

If my Intel Core i9-14900K review has you considering other options, here are two processors to consider... 

How I tested the Intel Core i9-14900K

  • I spent nearly two weeks testing the Intel Core i9-14900K
  • I ran comparable benchmarks between this chip and rival flagship processors
  • I gamed with this chip extensively
Test System Specs

These are the specs for the test system used for this review:

Intel Motherboard: MSI MPG Z790E Tomahawk Wifi
AMD Motherboard: ASRock X670E Steel Legend
CPU Cooler:
MSI MAG Coreliquid E360 AIO
Memory:
32GB SK Hynix DDR5-4800
SSD: Samsung 990 Pro
PSU: Thermaltake PF3 1050W ATX 3.0
Case: Praxis Wetbench

I spent about two weeks testing the Intel Core i9-14900K and its competition, using it mostly for productivity and content creation, with some gaming thrown in as well.

I used the standard battery of synthetic benchmarks I use for processor testing, and ran the same tests on rival chips from AMD as well as the other 14th-gen chips in the Raptor Lake Refresh launch lineup and 13th-generation Raptor Lake processors. For Intel chips, I used the same motherboard, RAM, SSD, and graphics card to ensure I was isolating just the CPU's performance across every chip. For AMD chips, I used a comparable AM5 motherboard so differences in the motherboard configuration and circuitry are mitigated to the largest extent possible.

I've been testing and reviewing computer hardware for years now, and with an extensive background in computer science, I know processors in and out, and I use that knowledge to ensure every chip is thoroughly tested.

We pride ourselves on our independence and our rigorous review-testing process, offering up long-term attention to the products we review and making sure our reviews are updated and maintained - regardless of when a device was released, if you can still buy it, it's on our radar.

Read more about how we test

First reviewed October 2023

Intel Arc A770 review: a great 1440p graphics card for those on a budget
4:00 pm | October 16, 2023

Author: admin | Category: Computers Computing Computing Components Gadgets | Tags: , , , | Comments: Off

Intel Arc A770: One-minute review

The Intel Arc A770 has had quite a journey since its release back on October 12, 2022, and fortunately, it has been a positive one for Intel despite a somewhat rocky start.

Right out the gate, I'll say that if you are looking for one of the best cheap graphics cards for 1440p gaming, this card definitely needs to be on your list. It offers great 1440p performance for most modern PC titles that most of us are going to be playing and it's priced very competitively against its rivals. 

Where the card falters, much like with my Intel Arc A750 review earlier this year, is with older DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 titles, and this really does hurt its overall score in the end. Which is a shame, since for games released in the last five or six years, this card is going to surprise a lot of people who might have written it off even six months ago.

Intel's discrete graphics unit has been working overtime on its driver for this card, providing regular updates that continue to improve performance across the board, though some games benefit more than others. 

Naturally, a lot of emphasis is going to be put on more recently released titles. And even though Intel has also been paying attention to shoring up support for older games as well, if you're someone with an extensive back catalog of DX9 and DX10 titles from the mid-2000s that you regularly return to, then this is not the best graphics card for your needs. Nvidia and AMD drivers carry a long legacy of support for older titles that Intel will honestly never be able to match.

But if what you're looking for is the best 1440p graphics card to play the best PC games of the modern era but you're not about to plop down half a grand on a new GPU, then the Intel Arc A770 is going to be a very solid pick with a lot more to offer than many will probably realize.

An Intel Arc A770 LE graphics card on a table with a pink desk mat

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Intel Arc A770: Price & availability

  • How much is it? US MSRP for 16GB card: $349 (about £280/AU$510); for 8GB card: $329 (about £265/AU$475)
  • When was it released? It went on sale on October 12, 2022
  • Where can you buy it? Available in the US, UK, and Australia

The Intel Arc A770 is available now in the US, UK, and Australia, with two variants: one with 16GB GDDR6 VRAM and an official US MSRP of $349 (about £280/AU$510), and one with 8GB GDDR6 VRAM and an official MSRP of $329 (about £265/AU$475).

Those are the launch MSRPs from October 2022, of course, and the cards have come down considerably in price in the year since their release, and you can either card for about 20% to 25% less than that. This is important, since the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060 and AMD Radeon RX 7600 are very close to the 16GB Arc A770 cards in terms of current prices, and offer distinct advantages that will make potential buyers want to go with the latter rather than the former.

But those decisions are not as cut and dry as you might think, and Intel's Arc A770 holds up very well against modern midrange offerings, despite really being a last-gen card. And, currently, the 16GB variant is the only 1440p card that you're going to find at this price, even among Nvidia and AMD's last-gen offerings like the RTX 3060 Ti and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT. So for 1440p gamers on a very tight budget, this card fills a very vital niche, and it's really the only card that does so.

  • Price score: 4/5

An Intel Arc A770 LE graphics card on a table with a pink desk mat

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Intel Arc A770: Design

  • Intel's Limited Edition reference card is gorgeous
  • Will fit most gaming PC cases easily
Intel Arc A770 Limited Edition Design Specs

Slot size: Dual slot
Length: 11.02 inches | 280mm
Height: 4.53 inches | 115mm
Cooling: Dual fan
Power Connection: 1 x 8-pin and 1 x 6-pin
Video outputs: 3 x DisplayPort 2.0, 1 x HDMI 2.1

The Intel Arc A770 Limited Edition that I'm reviewing is Intel's reference model that is no longer being manufactured, but you can still find some stock online (though at what price is a whole other question). 

Third-party partners include ASRock, Sparkle, and Gunnir. Interestingly, Acer also makes its own version of the A770 (the Acer Predator BiFrost Arc A770), the first time the company has dipped its toe into the discrete graphics card market.

All of these cards will obviously differ in terms of their shrouds, cooling solutions, and overall size, but as far as Intel's Limited Edition card goes, it's one of my favorite graphics cards ever in terms of aesthetics. If it were still easily available, I'd give this design five out of five, hands down, but most purchasers will have to opt for third-party cards which aren't nearly as good-looking, as far as I'm concerned, so I have to dock a point for that.

It's hard to convey from just the photos of the card, but the black finish on the plastic shroud of the card has a lovely textured feel to it. It's not quite velvety, but you know it's different the second you touch it, and it's something that really stands out from every other card I've reviewed.

An Intel Arc A770 LE graphics card on a table with a pink desk mat

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

The silver trim on the card and the more subtle RGB lighting against a matte black shroud and fans really bring a bit of class to the RGB graphics card I typically see. The twin fans aren't especially loud (not any more so than other dual-fan cards, at least), and the card feels thinner than most other similar cards I've reviewed and used, whether or not the card is thinner in fact.

The power connector is an 8-pin and 6-pin combo, so you'll have a pair of cables dangling from the card which may or may not affect the aesthetic of your case, but at least you won't need to worry about a 12VHPWR or 12-pin adapter like you do with Nvidia's RTX 4000-series and 3000-series cards.

You're also getting three DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and an HDMI 2.1 output, which puts it in the same camp as Nvidia's recent GPUs, but can't match AMD's recent move to DisplayPort 2.1, which will enable faster 8K video output. As it stands, the Intel Arc A770 is limited to 8K@60Hz, just like Nvidia. Will you be doing much 8K gaming on a 16GB card? Absolutely not, but as we get more 8K monitors next year, it'd be nice to have an 8K desktop running at 165Hz, but that's a very speculative prospect at this point, so it's probably not anything anyone looking at the Arc A770 needs to be concerned about.

  • Design Score: 4 / 5

An Intel Arc A770 LE graphics card on a table with a pink desk mat

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Intel Arc A770: Specs & features

  • Good hardware AI cores for better XeSS upscaling
  • Fast memory for better 1440p performance

Intel's Xe HPG architecture inside the Arc A770 introduces a whole other way to arrange the various co-processors that make up a GPU, adding a third, not very easily comparable set of specs to the already head-scratching differences between Nvidia and AMD architectures.

Intel breaks up its architecture into "render slices", which contain 4 Xe Cores, which each contain 128 shaders, a ray tracing processor, and 16 matrix processors (which are directly comparable to Nvidia's vaunted tensor cores at least), which handle graphics upsampling and machine learning workflows. Both 8GB and 16GB versions of the A770 contain eight render slices for a total of 4096 shaders, 32 ray processors, and 512 matrix processors.

The ACM-G10 GPU in the A770 runs at 2,100MHz base frequency with a 2,400MHz boost frequency, with a slightly faster memory clock speed (2,184MHz) for the 16GB variant than the 8GB variant's 2,000MHz. This leads to an effective memory speed of 16 Gbps for the 8GB card and 17.5 Gbps for the 16GB.

With a 256-bit memory bus, this gives the Arc A770 a much wider lane for high-resolution textures to be processed through, reducing bottlenecks and enabling faster performance when gaming at 1440p and higher resolutions thanks to a 512 GB/s and 559.9 GB/s memory bandwidth for the 8GB and 16GB cards, respectively.

All of this does require a good bit of power, though, and the Arc A770 has a TDP of 225W, which is higher than most 1440p cards on the market today.

An Intel Arc A770 LE graphics card on a table with a pink desk mat

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

As far as features all this hardware empowers, there's a lot to like here. The matrix cores are leveraged to great effect by Intel's XeSS graphics upscaling tech found in a growing number of games, and this hardware advantage generally outperforms AMD's FSR 2.0, which is strictly a software-based upscaler.

XeSS does not have frame generation though, and the matrix processors in the Arc A770 are not nearly as mature as Nvidia's 3rd and 4th generation tensor cores found in the RTX 3000-series and RTX 4000-series, respectively.

The Arc A770 also has AV1 hardware-accelerated encoding support, meaning that streaming videos will look far better than those with only software encoding at the same bitrate, making this a compelling alternative for video creators who don't have the money to invest in one of Nvidia's 4000-series GPUs.

  • Specs & features: 3.5 / 5

An Intel Arc A770 LE graphics card on a table with a pink desk mat

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Intel Arc A770: Performance

  • Great 1440p performance
  • Intel XeSS even allows for some 4K gaming
  • DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 support lacking, so older games will run poorly
  • Resizable BAR is pretty much a must

At the time of this writing, Intel's Arc A770 has been on the market for about a year, and I have to admit, had I gotten the chance to review this card at launch, I would probably have been as unkind as many other reviewers were.

As it stands though, the Intel Arc A770 fixes many of the issues I found when I reviewed the A750, but some issues still hold this card back somewhat. For starters, if you don't enable Resizable BAR in your BIOS settings, don't expect this card to perform well at all. It's an easy enough fix, but one that is likely to be overlooked, so it's important to know that going in.

Image 1 of 15

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 15

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 3 of 15

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 4 of 15

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 5 of 15

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 6 of 15

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 7 of 15

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 8 of 15

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 9 of 15

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 10 of 15

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 11 of 15

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 12 of 15

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 13 of 15

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 14 of 15

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 15 of 15

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

In synthetic benchmarks, the A770 performed fairly well against the current crop of graphics cards, despite its effectively being a last-gen card. It is particularly strong competition against the Nvidia RTX 4060 Ti across multiple workloads, and it even beats the 4060 Ti in a couple of tests.

Its Achilles Heel, though, is revealed in the PassMark 3D Graphics test. Whereas 3DMark tests DirectX 11 and DirectX 12 workloads, Passmark's test also runs DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 workflows, and here the Intel Arc A770 simply can't keep up with AMD and Nvidia.

Image 1 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 3 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 4 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 5 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 6 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 7 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 8 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 9 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 10 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 11 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 12 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 13 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 14 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 15 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 16 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 17 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 18 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 19 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 20 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 21 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 22 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 23 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 24 of 24

Non-ray traced, non-upscaled  gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

In non-ray-traced and native-resolution gaming benchmarks, the Intel Arc A770 managed to put up some decent numbers against the competition. At 1080p, the Arc A770 manages an average of 103 fps with an average minimum fps of 54. At 1440p, it averages 78 fps, with an average minimum of 47, and even at 4K, the A770 manages an average of 46 fps, with an average minimum of 27 fps.

Image 1 of 12

Ray-traced gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 12

Ray-traced gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 3 of 12

Ray-traced gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 4 of 12

Ray-traced gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 5 of 12

Ray-traced gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 6 of 12

Ray-traced gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 7 of 12

Ray-traced gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 8 of 12

Ray-traced gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 9 of 12

Ray-traced gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 10 of 12

Ray-traced gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 11 of 12

Ray-traced gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 12 of 12

Ray-traced gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

Turn on ray tracing, however, and these numbers understandably tank, as they do for just about every card below the RTX 4070 Ti and RX 7900 XT. Still, even here, the A770 does manage an average fps of 41 fps, with an average minimum of 32 fps) at 1080p with ray tracing enabled, which is technically still playable performance. Once you move up to 1440p and 4K, however, your average title isn't going to be playable at native resolution with ray tracing enabled.

Image 1 of 9

Ray-traced and balanced upscaled gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 9

Ray-traced and balanced upscaled gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 3 of 9

Ray-traced and balanced upscaled gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 4 of 9

Ray-traced and balanced upscaled gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 5 of 9

Ray-traced and balanced upscaled gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 6 of 9

Ray-traced and balanced upscaled gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 7 of 9

Ray-traced and balanced upscaled gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 8 of 9

Ray-traced and balanced upscaled gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 9 of 9

Ray-traced and balanced upscaled gaming benchmark results for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

Enter Intel XeSS. When set to "Balanced", XeSS turns out to be a game changer for the A770, getting it an average framerate of 66 fps (with an average minimum of 46 fps) at 1080p, an average of 51 fps (with an average minimum of 38 fps) at 1440p, and an average 33 fps (average minimum 26 fps) at 4K with ray tracing maxed out.

While the 26 fps average minimum fps at 4K means it's really not playable at that resolution even with XeSS turned on, with settings tweaks, or more modest ray tracing, you could probably bring that up into the low to high 30s, making 4K games playable on this card with ray tracing turned on. 

That's something the RTX 4060 Ti can't manage thanks to its smaller frame buffer (8GB VRAM), and while the 16GB RTX 4060 Ti could theoretically perform better (I have not tested the 16GB so I cannot say for certain), it still has half the memory bus width of the A770, leading to a much lower bandwidth for larger texture files to pass through.

This creates an inescapable bottleneck that the RTX 4060 Ti's much larger L2 cache can't adequately compensate for, and so takes it out of the running as a 4K card. When tested, very few games managed to maintain playable frame rates even without ray tracing unless you dropped the settings so low as to not make it worth the effort. The A770 16GB, meanwhile, isn't technically a 4K card, but it can still dabble at that resolution with the right settings tweaks and still look reasonably good.

Image 1 of 9

The final average performance benchmark scores for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)
Image 2 of 9

The final average performance benchmark scores for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)
Image 3 of 9

The final average performance benchmark scores for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)
Image 4 of 9

The final average performance benchmark scores for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)
Image 5 of 9

The final average performance benchmark scores for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)
Image 6 of 9

The final average performance benchmark scores for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)
Image 7 of 9

Final performance scores for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 8 of 9

Final performance scores for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 9 of 9

Final performance scores for the Intel Arc A770

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

All told, then, the Intel Arc A770 turns out to be a surprisingly good graphics card for modern gaming titles that can sometimes even hold its own against the Nvidia RTX 4060 Ti. It can't hold a candle to the RX 7700 XT or RTX 4070, but it was never meant to, and given that those cards cost substantially more than the Arc A770, this is entirely expected.

Its maximum observed power draw of 191.909W is pretty high for the kind of card the A770 is, but it's not the most egregious offender in that regard. All this power meant that keeping it cool was a struggle, with its maximum observed temperature hitting about 74 ºC.

Among all the cards tested, the Intel Arc A770 was at nearly the bottom of the list with the RX 6700 XT, so the picture for this card might have been very different had it launched three years ago and it had to compete with the RTX 3000-series and RX-6000 series exclusively. In the end, this card performs like a last-gen card, because it is. 

Despite that, it still manages to be a fantastic value on the market right now given its low MSRP and fairly solid performance, rivaling the RTX 4060 Ti on the numbers. In reality though, with this card selling for significantly less than its MSRP, it is inarguably the best value among midrange cards right now, and it's not even close.

  • Performance score: 3.5 / 5

An Intel Arc A770 LE graphics card on a table with a pink desk mat

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Should you buy the Intel Arc A770?

Buy the Intel Arc A770 if...

Don't buy it if...

Also Consider

If my Intel Arc A770 review has you considering other options, here are two more graphics cards for you to consider.

How I tested the Intel Arc A770

  • I spent several days benchmarking the card, with an additional week using it as my primary GPU
  • I ran our standard battery of synthetic and gaming benchmarks 
Test Bench

These are the specs for the test system used for this review:
CPU: Intel Core i9-13900K
CPU Cooler: 
Cougar Poseidon GT 360 AIO Cooler
Motherboard: MSI MPG Z790E Tomahawk Wifi
Memory: 
64GB Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB DDR5-6000
SSD: Samsung 990 Pro
PSU: Thermaltake PF3 1050W ATX 3.0
Case: Praxis Wetbench

I spent about two weeks with the Intel Arc A770 in total, with a little over half that time using it as my main GPU on my personal PC. I used it for gaming, content creation, and other general-purpose use with varying demands on the card.

I focused mostly on synthetic and gaming benchmarks since this card is overwhelmingly a gaming graphics card. Though it does have some video content creation potential, it's not enough to dethrone Nvidia's 4000-series GPUs, so it isn't a viable rival in that sense and wasn't tested as such.

I've been reviewing computer hardware for years now, with an extensive computer science background as well, so I know how graphics cards like this should perform at this tier.

We pride ourselves on our independence and our rigorous review-testing process, offering up long-term attention to the products we review and making sure our reviews are updated and maintained - regardless of when a device was released, if you can still buy it, it's on our radar.

Read more about how we test

  • First reviewed October 2023
Samsung Exynos 2400 detailed – 70% faster CPU, Xclipse 940 GPU with AMD RDNA 3 graphics
11:53 am | October 6, 2023

Author: admin | Category: Mobile phones news | Tags: , | Comments: Off

Samsung Semiconductor held its System LSI Tech Day event in San Jose, California where we got an early glimpse of the upcoming Exynos 2400 flagship mobile chipset. Exynos 2400 will likely arrive on the Galaxy S24 series, serving as a successor to Exynos 2200 with promises of a massive leap in performance. Samsung claims Exynos 2400 offers a 1.7x increase in CPU performance and a 14.7x boost in AI performance compared to the Exynos 2200. Samsung introduced a new AI tool designed for upcoming smartphones with updated text-to-image AI generation which was demoed on stage. Exynos...

AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D review: a fantastic premium performer, but its price holds it back
8:17 pm | September 13, 2023

Author: admin | Category: Computers Gadgets | Tags: , , , | Comments: Off

AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D: One-minute review

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D is the middle child of the current 3D V-Cache processors from Team Red alongside the 7800X3D and the 7950X3D. It launched alongside the rest of the line back in February of this year and offers heightened gaming performance, but comes at a price. 

Without a doubt, it is one of the best processors for gaming on the market. But even as gamers are going to be able to get the most out of this chip, it's productivity performance isn't too bad either. 

Armed with a significantly lower TDP than the rest of the current AMD Zen 4 lineup, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D packs in 12 cores and 24 threads on a 120W TDP with a base clock speed of 4.4 GHz out of the box, and that's honestly the core appeal of this chip. 

It's more power efficient and offers better raw gaming performance than its non-3D counterpart, but the addition of AMD's 3D V-cache means it can hold up with far pricier processors as well. 

It should be stated that overall, you're falling into one of two camps with the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D, as it is impressive for gaming, but won't necessarily set the world on fire with the creativity or productivity side of things at the higher end of the spectrum. 

The raw gaming performance at its $599 / £479.99 / AU$859.99 price point is decent, but chances are if you're spending this much on a CPU purely for gaming, you could argue that an extra $100 / £130 / AU$279 for the top-end 7950X3D could be a better bet instead. 

AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D: Price and availability

  • Comparable price to the Intel Core i9-13900K
  • $50 /  £50 / AU$64 more than base 7900X

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D was released on February 28, 2023, and currently retails for $599 / £479.99 / AU$859.99. 

That's around $100 / £130 / AU$279 less than the flagship AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D which features 16 cores and 32 threads. As a point of comparison, this AMD processor comes in a little cheaper than the Intel Core i9-13900K in the UK and Australia, where it currently sells at £699 / AU$929, and is just $10 more expensive in the US. 

That is only one side of the story, though. That's because the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D requires an upgrade to the latest AM5 socket, which means an entirely new motherboard as well as the exclusive use of DDR5 RAM, and the best DDR5 RAM isn't cheap (even if it has come down in price). 

Essentially, you'll be building an entirely new system around the chip as there's no more backward compatibility with AM4 as we saw with the two previous Ryzen processor generations (though the best CPU coolers for AM4 processors will still work with the new AMD chips). 

This is owing to AMD's transition from a PGA to LGA socket, which just means that the processor no longer has pins the way previous generations did, much like with the best Intel processors

  • Price score: 3.5 / 5

AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D: Chipset & features

Close up on the Ryzen 9 7900X3D

(Image credit: Future)
  • Improved power efficiency 
  • Zen 4 3D V-cache for under $600 / £500 / AU$900

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D features a lot of the same broad strokes as its non-3D variant. You're getting the same 12 cores and 24 threads on the AM5 socket with a total boost clock of up to 5.6GHz. The core difference here, however, is the 3D V-Cache which doubles the stock version's 64MB L3 Cache for a total of 128MB. 

The higher the L3 cache is, the better gaming or intensive processing workloads can perform, that's because it's the largest level of cache available on a processor.

Added cache aside, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D is also significantly more power-efficient than any current non-3D Zen 4 processors available, as it clocks in with a Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 120W, which is much lower than the substantially higher 170W of its stock variant. 

While a higher TDP usually relates to higher performance, the inclusion of the added 3D V-cache means that the processor can access a larger pool of superfast cache memory, which is even more useful when gaming than just throwing raw power at the problem. With its own dedicated extra cache, there are fewer fetch operations to the PC's main memory, so the chip runs more efficiently, and potentially cooler under load. 

This is reflected when contrasted against the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X's core clock speed of 4.7 GHz to the 3D variant's 4.4 GHz. It's a little slower out of the box despite the overclocking potential being the same, however, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D is still far faster than any of the current Alder Lake or Raptor Lake processors in terms of the raw speed. 

Ultimately, the reduced memory latency means that you're getting a chip that runs cooler, draws less power, and performs better thanks to the addition of the second generation of AMD's V-cache. 

  • Design & features score: 4 / 5

AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D: Performance

AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D up close

(Image credit: Future)

You won't be shocked to hear that the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D is one of the most capable CPUs for gaming that I've ever used, holding its own against the flagship 7950X and the Intel Core i9-13900K. 

This is evidenced by some of the most impressive synthetic scores to date in industry-standard programs such as GeekBench 6, PCMark10, and Cinebench R23, among others, and you can see how the Ryzen 9 7900X3D compares to competing high-end processors below. 

Where the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D falls behind the Intel Core i9-13900K and the 7950X3D in terms of the productivity benchmarks, the gap is greatly closed with the raw gaming performance. Turning to the gaming benchmarks, this chip's 3D V-cache makes all the difference in demanding titles such as F1 2022, Returnal, and Total War: Warhammer 3

As with our other CPU reviews, the games tested in the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D review are tested at 1080p at the lowest graphics settings in order to isolate the processor's contribution to gaming performance. Below, you can see how this chipset compares to the best AMD processor and best Intel processor respectively. 

Compared to the more expensive chipsets, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D absolutely holds its own with the 7950X3D and the 13900K, with the largest gap visible seen with how AMD's flagship handles Returnal. This is likely due to the fact that the 7950X3D utilizes an additional four cores and eight threads, and Total War series has always been Intel's strongest gaming benchmark, which remains the case here. 

Still, with the Ryzen 9 7900X3D, we're still talking about an absolute powerhouse of a CPU, with framerates well above 100fps in demanding games, and upwards of 400fps in tamer titles. Realistically, you can expect this chip to be an absolute behemoth for 1080p, though you'll get diminishing returns at 1440p and 4K if you don't have the beefiest video card in your rig that can keep up with the processor. 

Overall, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D is an impressive processor for the money which is definitely geared more toward gaming than productivity or creativity tasks. If you're purely interested in playing games then this processor offers strong price-to-performance at the $600 / £480 / AU$860 mark, but with the Ryzen 9 7950X3D so close in price, a lot of buyers out there are likely to be torn. 

  • Performance score: 4 / 5

Should you buy the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D?

Buy it if...

Don't buy it if...

Also Consider

If my AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D review has you considering other options, here are two more processors to consider.

Intel Core i9-13900K
There's very little that we can fault the Raptor Lake flagship on with its performance. That's due to the excellent Raptor Cove and Gracemont cores with its hybrid architecture that makes it a processor that's difficult to beat outside of its expensive price point. 

Read the full 5-star Intel Core i9-13900K review

How I tested the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D

  • Used in main gaming PC rig for almost a month 
  • Played a variety of titles including those benchmarked 
  • Industry standard synthetic benchmark tests 
Test system specs

CPU cooler: NZXT Kraken Elite 360
GPU: Nvidia RTX 4090
DDR5 RAM: 32GB (2 x 16GB) Kingston Fury Beast RGB @ 6,000 MHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte X670 Aorus Elite AX
SSD: Seagate FireCuda 530 2TB
PSU: Corsair RM1000x
Case: NZXT H9 Flow

I tested the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D inside of a newly built machine utilizing Kingston Fury Beast DDR5 RAM, an Nvidia RTX 4090, and a brand new RM1000X PSU. The chip was utilized heavily for gaming in the benchmarked titles as well as in games such as Mortal Kombat 11, Cyberpunk 2077, and Tekken 7.

I've also been using the machine as my main computer for both work and play and have racked up dozens of hours word processing as well as with media playback. Through the real-world testing, the benchmarking, and the stress testing, I came to my four-star conclusion on the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D as a recommended CPU for gaming.

We pride ourselves on our independence and our rigorous review-testing process, offering up long-term attention to the products we review and making sure our reviews are updated and maintained - regardless of when a device was released, if you can still buy it, it's on our radar.

Read more about how we test

First reviewed September 2023

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT review: pulling an otherwise knockout, midrange punch
12:10 am | September 9, 2023

Author: admin | Category: Computers Gadgets | Tags: , , , | Comments: Off

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT: Two-minute review

To say I've been looking forward to the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT for over a year is an understatement, and if I were to judge this card on its merits, I have to say that this is easily one of the best graphics card releases we've gotten out of this generation. My heart, though, knows that it should have been even better, so I can't help but feel slightly disappointed.

Released right on the heels of Labor Day here in the US, getting this card properly tested was obviously going to be a heavy lift, so when my preliminary benchmark numbers showed it edging out the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 by about 2% overall (while not getting as badly crushed by Nvidia's midrange rival in ray-tracing performance as during the previous generation), I figured this card was going to be an easy one to review.

Coming in at $499.99 (about £380/AU$725) compared to the RTX 4070's MSRP of $599.99 (about £460/AU$870), that roughly 17% price difference in AMD's favor is going to make a world of difference for a lot of gamers out there looking to upgrade to a current-gen midrange card.

In addition to fantastic 1440p gaming performance and even very respectable 4K gaming performance (thanks in no small part to the 16GB VRAM and 256-bit memory bus), ray tracing performance has gotten better as AMD's ray accelerators have improved and a host of new anti-latency and upscaling features make this pretty much the best 1440p graphics card on the market, hands down.

An AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT on a table

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

So why does my heart ache having done a very intense week's worth of testing on this card?

Well, the single biggest negative in this card's column is that there is very little gen-on-gen improvement in terms of its rasterization performance over the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT. 

Now the RX 7800 XT does have things that the RX 6800 XT doesn't have, namely AI accelerator cores that can power more advanced AI workloads like upscaling and other generative AI processes, and the 7800 XT does feature much better ray tracing performance than its predecessor, so calling these cards essentially the same would be factually and substantively wrong.

But rasterization is AMD Radeon's bread-and-butter, and by that metric, you only really get about 12% and 5% better gaming performance at 1080p and 1440p, respectively, and there's essentially no difference at 4K. If you don't care about ray tracing or running Stable Diffusion-like AI models (which you're likely to use Nvidia hardware for anyway), then this card is going to feel much more like a refresh of the RX 6800 XT, or even the RX 6850 XT that we didn't get a year ago.

And for that, the RX 7800 XT leaves me somewhat disappointed. If you aren't upgrading from an RX 6800 XT (which you shouldn't be doing even if this card was a true gen-on-gen successor like the fantastic AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is to the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT), then none of this is really going to matter to you. 

I'd still tell you to buy the RX 7800 XT over the RX 6800 XT and even the RTX 4070, without question, but there's no getting around the fact that the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT misses its shot at being truly magnificent.

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT: Price & availability

An AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT on a table

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)
  • How much does it cost? $499.99 (about £380/AU$725)
  • When is it available? Available September 6, 2023
  • Where can you get it? Available in the US, UK, and Australia

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is available on September 6, 2023, starting at $499.99 (about £380/AU$725), which puts it about 23% cheaper than the RX 6800 XT was when it launched in 2020, and $100 cheaper than direct competitor the Nvidia RTX 4070.

It's also just $50 more expensive than the RX 7700 XT that it launched alongside, so anyone looking at the RX 7700 XT might be better served by buying the RX 7800 XT instead since you'll get better performance and extra VRAM without spending a whole lot more money.

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT: Specs

An AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT on a table

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT: Design

Unlike the RX 7700 XT, the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT does have a reference card, and it'll look familiar to anyone who's been looking at AMD cards this generation. Opting for a two-fan cooling solution, this dual-slot card looks a lot like the AMD Radeon RX 7600 would if you stretched the card lengthwise. 

It's not a long card either, measuring 267mm, or about 10.5 inches, so you shouldn't have any issues getting this card to fit inside a mid-tower case or larger. You might even be able to squeeze it into some tighter-fitting cases as well, but that'll depend on the case itself and what version of the RX 7800 XT you end up getting (third-party versions will vary in size and will likely be longer).

An AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT on a table

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

The reference model of the card features three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs along with an HDMI 2.1 port, so it'll be more than capable of powering the best 4K monitors with ease, along with the various sizes and resolutions of the best gaming monitors on the market.

What it doesn't have, however, is a USB-C output, so if you have one of the best USB-C monitors (which is common in creative industries), youi'll likely need to pick up an adapter if you plan on slotting this card into a workstation.

An AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT on a table

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

You'll also only need two free 8-pin power connectors, so no 12HPWR cable like Nvidia's competing cards. The card is fairly solid with a decent amount of weight, so you'll definitely need a support bracket if you're slotting this directly into a motherboard's PCIe slot.

Overall, the appearance is the same no-fuss, no-bling aesthetic we've gotten from AMD's RDNA 3 reference cards this generation, so if you want that RGB look, you're better off with a third-party card, but otherwise it's a lovely card to look at and won't be the shame of anyone's PC case.

An AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT on a table

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT: Chipset & features

The Navi 32 GPU in the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is the full version of the chip compared to the slightly trimmed-down GPU powering the RX 7700 XT, with an additional 6 compute units over the RX 7700 XT's 54, giving the RX 7800 XT an additional 384 shaders, 6 ray accelerators, and 12 AI accelerators.

The RX 7800 XT has a fairly low base clock of 1,295 MHz, compared to the RX 7700 XT's 1,700 MHz, but the RX 7800 XT's boost clock runs as high as 2,430 MHz (compared to the RX 7700 XT's 2,544 MHz).

This means that even though the RX 7800 XT has slightly more compute units, everything is running slightly slower, which goes a long way to explaining the relatively close levels of performance between the two GPUs.

The RX 7800 XT does feature 16GB VRAM with a large 256-bit memory bus, with a memory clock of 2,425 MHz for an effective 19.4 Gbps. This is slower than the RTX 4070's 21 Gbps effective memory speed, but the wider bus and larger frame buffer offered by the additional 4GB VRAM with the RX 7800 XT really highlights where Nvidia went wrong with lower VRAM and tighter buses this generation, compared to AMD who generally got the memory question on their cards right.

Finally, the TGP on the RX 7800 XT is a rather high 263W, compared to the 200W RTX 4070, but this is still less than the RX 6800 XT's 300W TGP, so there's progress at least.

An AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT on a table

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT: Performance

And here is where the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT impresses the most, even as it breaks my heart: performance.

I'll start with the good news for AMD here, which is that it by and large scores even with the RTX 4070 in terms of synthetic tests and gameplay performance while faltering rather badly against the RTX 4070 in creative workloads, which is pretty much expected given the Nvidia CUDA instruction set's dominance in all things creative.

Image 1 of 15

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 15

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 3 of 15

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 4 of 15

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 5 of 15

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 6 of 15

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 7 of 15

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 8 of 15

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 9 of 15

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 10 of 15

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 11 of 15

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 12 of 15

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 13 of 15

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 14 of 15

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 15 of 15

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

On the synthetic side, the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT outperforms the RTX 4070 by about 2% overall, with rasterization workloads being its breakout strength, while Nvidia's ray tracing capabilities continue to outperform AMD's. Though it's worth noting that the RX 7800 XT does a lot to close the gap here, so Nvidia's advantage is only about 15% at best during 3DMark Speedway and just 6% better in Port Royal. 

Meanwhile, the RX 7800 XT manages to score 25% better in 3DMark Firestrike Ultra, showing it to be a much better 4K card than the RTX 4070 thanks to the additional VRAM, a level of performance that is replicated in our gaming tests.

Image 1 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 2 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 3 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 4 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 5 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 6 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 7 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 8 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 9 of 24

Benchmarking results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 10 of 24

Benchmarking results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 11 of 24

Benchmarking results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 12 of 24

Benchmarking results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 13 of 24

Benchmarking results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 14 of 24

Benchmarking results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 15 of 24

Benchmarking results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 16 of 24

Benchmarking results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 17 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 18 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 19 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 20 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 21 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 22 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 23 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)
Image 24 of 24

Benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

When not using any upscaling tech, on average, the RX 7800 XT performs 15% better without ray tracing than the RTX 4070 (and just 4% worse with ray tracing at max settings) at 1080p, 6% better on average at 1440p (16% worse when ray tracing on max settings), and 17% better at 4K (though about 25% worse at 4K when ray tracing).

FSR 2 can't hold a candle to DLSS 3 when ray tracing, but in non-RT gameplay, FSR 2 and the RX 7800 XT actually comes out way ahead across all resolutions when FSR 2 and DLSS 3 are set to balanced, with the RX 7800 XT getting 53%, 21%, 19% better performance at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, respectively. 

Turning on ray tracing prety much reverses the case and the RTX 4070 gets as much as 47%, 16%, and 12% better performance at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions, respectively.

In short, if you're planning on gaming without ray tracing, there is no question that between the RX 7800 XT and RTX 4070, the RX 7800 XT is the card you'll want to buy. 

Here, as well, the RX 7800 XT manages to perform better than the RX 6800 XT, by about 15%, which isn't awful, but gamers hoping for a much larger improvement on the RX 6800 XT (such as myself) will be disappointed. Getting 15% better FPS on average when talking about the RX 7600 is one thing. 

Given the price and the class of card in question, 15% is pretty much all you're going to get, but for a nearly $500 graphics card, I'd have liked to see 25% to 33%, if I'm being honest, and that's where this card ultimately should have landed in a perfect world. 

But ours is a fallen land, and we're not comparing this card against a Platonic ideal projecting onto a cave wall, we're comparing it to the cards on the shelf that you have to pick between for your next upgrade. 

If you can find the RX 6800 XT for more than 15% less than the RX 7800 XT, that might make the last-gen card the better buy. If that's not an option though, and you're like most gamers looking at the RTX 4070 vs. RX 7800 XT, the vast majority are going to get a better experience from the RX 7800 XT, especially when they have an extra $100 to buy themselves something else that's nice, as a treat.

An AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT on a table

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Should you buy the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT?

Buy it if...

You want to play at 4K
This card has serious 4K gaming chops thanks to its 16GB VRAM and wide memory bus.

You don't want to completely sacrifice ray tracing
AMD is finally getting to the point where you can have both great rasterization and decent ray tracing performance.

Don't buy it if...

You want the best ray tracing and upscaling possible
If ray tracing and upscaling are your bag, then the RTX 4070 is going to be the better buy here.

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT: Also consider

If my AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT review has you considering other options, here are two more graphics cards to consider.

How I tested the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT

  • I spent about a week with the RX 7800 XT
  • I focused mostly on gaming, since that is what AMD Radeon graphics cards are primarily used for
  • I used our standard battery of benchmark tests and personal gameplay experience
Test System Specs

These are the specs for the test system used for this review:

CPU: Intel Core i9-13900K
CPU Cooler:
Cougar Poseidon GT 360 AIO Cooler
Motherboard: MSI MPG Z790E Tomahawk Wifi
Memory:
64GB Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB DDR5-6000
SSD: Samsung 990 Pro
PSU: Thermaltake PF3 1050W ATX 3.0
Case: Praxis Wetbench

I spent about a week extensively testing the RX 7800 XT, both in a test bench and as my personal gaming card at home.

I ran our standard battery of performance benchmarks, including 3DMark tests and various in-game gaming benchmarks, on the RX 7800 XT and various competing graphics cards from AMD and Nvidia to get a slate of comparable figures.

In addition to my extensive computer science education and years as a tech product reviewer, I've been a PC gamer my whole life, so I know what to look for and what to expect from a graphics card at this price point.

We pride ourselves on our independence and our rigorous review-testing process, offering up long-term attention to the products we review and making sure our reviews are updated and maintained - regardless of when a device was released, if you can still buy it, it's on our radar.

Read more about how we test

First reviewed September 2023

AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT review: worth the wait, but its price is iffy
4:00 pm | September 6, 2023

Author: admin | Category: Computers Gadgets | Tags: , , , | Comments: Off

AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT: One-minute review

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is a very solid 1440p graphics card with a lot going for it, but its price isn't one of them, and that ultimately holds it back from scoring a major upset for Team Red.

That isn't to say that the RX 7700 XT isn't a card worth buying, but it is one that comes with a pretty big caveat, namely its bigger sibling, the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT that launches alongside it on September 6, 2023. At $449.99 (about £350/AU$660), this puts it exactly $50 cheaper than the RX 7800 XT. Now, there are caveats around that as well, since the RX 7800 XT's performance is better, but not so much as to make it the best graphics card to buy between the two. 

By offering better ray tracing performance, a significant performance gain over its predecessor, and doing so at a cheaper price point to boot makes the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT an easy card to recommend for anyone looking for the best 1440p graphics card without breaking the bank.

AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: AMD)

Given the end of the summer holiday (in the Northern Hemisphere, at least), I'm still in the process of wrapping up testing on the RX 7800 XT, but it looks to be about 10% to 15% faster than the RX 7700 XT, so the price isn't that far out of pocket on either card, but that does leave you with two cards occupying a very similar niche.

In terms of the RX 7700 XT, its ostensible competition is the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060 Ti, and broadly speaking it wipes the floor with the RTX 4060 Ti 8GB variant when you're not using ray tracing at 1440p and 1080p.

There are times when the RX 7700 XT even gives the Nvidia RTX 4070 some competition, even though that card is supposed to be squaring up against the RX 7800 XT, and it's against our current top pick for the best graphics card overall that really pushes the RX 7700 XT above all the caveats and make it a card worth buying.

AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT: Price & availability

An AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT on a table

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)
  • How much does it cost? $449.99 (about £350/AU$660)
  • When is it available? Available September 6, 2023
  • Where can you get it? Available in the US, UK, and Australia

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is available on September 6, 2023 starting at $449.99 (about £350/AU$660).

This puts the RX 7700 XT about $30 cheaper than the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT it replaces (which launched at $479.99), which is great, and it puts it dead center between the two RTX 4060 Ti variants in terms of price, so we'll go ahead and call it a wash on that front.

If there's an issue here really it's that the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is also just $50 more ($499.99, about £385/AU$725). As mentioned before, I'm still wrapping up our AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT review, but that card looks to give you about 10% to 15% better performance for an 11% premium, it might be the better value for those who want a midrange card with marginally better performance.

AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT: Specs

An AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT on a table

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT: Design

In terms of design, there's not much to say about the AMD RX 7700 XT other than to check with the third-party manufacturers of the card you want to buy, since there is no reference card for the RX 7700 XT.

One thing to note though is that no matter which card you go with, to my knowledge no AMD RX 7700 XT card will require a 12HPWR cable to power it, so two 8-pin cables should be all you need.

An AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT on a table

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT: Chipset & features

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT, along with the RX 7800 XT, finally brings AMD's Navi 32 GPU to the desktop market after nearly a year of waiting, and overall I can say it's been worth the wait.

The RX 7700 XT features a slightly cut-down version of the GPU than the one used in the RX 7800 XT, so there's not too much difference between the two. The biggest though will be what's not on the GPU die itself, namely the amount of VRAM.

The RX 7700 XT features 12GB, which is the bare minimum for effective 1440p gameplay, and unlike the largely disappointing RTX 4060 Ti, AMD at least made sure to include enough VRAM to be effective and gave the card a wide enough memory bus to give it the texture bandwidth necessary to play at this level without needing to rely on the assistance of upscaling tech.

Speaking of upscaling tech, along with the announcement of the RX 7800 XT and RX 7700 XT, AMD unveiled FSR 3 which should definitely help AMD level the playing field with Nvidia, but since that's a software-driven tool, rather than being tied to the driver and the RDNA 3 hardware itself, I'll save a deep dive into that for another time, but just know that you should be able to start leveraging that tech soon as well.

If there's a knock on the RX 7700 XT here, it's its power consumption. At 245W, its rated power draw is high for a 1440p card, especially when Nvidia is able to make do with 200W for the RTX 4070 and 160W for the RTX 4060 Ti.

An AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT slotted into a test bench

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT: Performance

In terms of performance, the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is pretty much what we want to see in the gen-on-gen performance increase of a midrange card.

Starting with synthetic benchmarks, the RX 7700 XT scored about 28% better in 1080p performance than the RX 6700 XT, about 35% better in 1440p performance, and about 29% better in terms of 4K performance, or about 30% better than the RX 6700 XT overall.

Against the Nvidia RTX 4070, meanwhile, the RX 7700 XT only scored about 7.25% lower overall in synthetic performance while costing about 25% less, making it a very compelling challenger to Nvidia's best midrange offering.

The same goes for gaming performance, which is really what everyone is interested in here. The story is much as you'd expect: AMD performs as well or better in rasterization performance while falling behind when it comes to ray tracing and upscaling performance against competing RTX 4060 Ti and RTX 4070 cards.

Most interesting perhaps is the RX 7700 XT's performance vis a vis the RTX 4070, where the RX 7700 XT averaged 103 fps at 1080p, 77 fps at 1440p, and 48 fps at 4K, compared to the RTX 4070's 117 fps, 88 fps, and 52 fps, respectively. These are very close, and for many gamers this will be a practical tie depending on their rigs, so if you're looking for the best cheap graphics card for 1440p and 4K gaming, the RX 7700 XT is definitely one to consider.

A masculine hand holding an AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Should you buy the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT?

Buy it if...

You want a great 1440p graphics card
The RX 7700 XT is a fantastic card for 1440p gaming, especially for the price.

You don't care about ray tracing
As with any AMD graphics card, if you don't really care about ray tracing, you can pretty much skip Nvidia's premium offerings.

Don't buy it if...

You have a bit more room in your budget
If you've got some extra money to spend, the RTX 4070 is still likely to be the best option for 1440p gaming.

AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT: Also consider

If my AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT review has you considering other options, here are two more graphics cards to consider.

How I tested the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

  • I spent about a week with the RX 7700 XT
  • I focused mostly on gaming, since that is what AMD Radeon graphics cards are primarily used for
  • I used our standard battery of benchmark tests and personal gameplay experience
Test System Specs

These are the specs for the test system used for this review:

CPU: Intel Core i9-13900K
CPU Cooler:
Cougar Poseidon GT 360 AIO Cooler
Motherboard: MSI MPG Z790E Tomahawk Wifi
Memory:
64GB Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB DDR5-6000
SSD: Samsung 990 Pro
PSU: Thermaltake PF3 1050W ATX 3.0
Case: Praxis Wetbench

I spent about a week with the AM Radeon RX 7700 XT running benchmark tests and playing Baldur's Gate 3 like everyone else is doing right now.

AMD Radeon cards are overwhelmingly used for gaming purposes, so I focused my efforts on determining how good of a gaming graphics card it is.

I've been a PC gamer my whole life and I've spent the past few years extensively benchmarking gaming hardware for a living, so I know how a graphics card at this level is supposed to perform given its price as well as the manufacturer's past product launches.

We pride ourselves on our independence and our rigorous review-testing process, offering up long-term attention to the products we review and making sure our reviews are updated and maintained - regardless of when a device was released, if you can still buy it, it's on our radar.

Read more about how we test

First reviewed September 2023

Beelink GTR7 7840HS review
2:09 pm | August 31, 2023

Author: admin | Category: Computers Gadgets | Tags: , , | Comments: Off

Beelink GTR7 7840HS: 30 second review

Beelink GTR7 7840HS Specs

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS (Base: 3.80 GHz, Boost: 5.10 GHz)
Graphics: AMD Radeon™ (12 Cores, 2700 MHz Frequency)
RAM: Dual SO-DIMM 32GB DDR5 (Upgradeable)
Storage: PCIe 4.0 M.2 NVMe 2280 1TB SSD (Expandable with additional M.2 slots)
Rear Ports: USB 2.0x2, USB 3.2x2, USB4x2, DPx1, HDMx1, LAN 2.5Gx2, 3.5mm Audio Jackx2
Front Ports: Not specified
Connectivity: WiFi 6, Bluetooth 5.2
Audio: Realtek ALC897
Camera: Not specified
Size: Not specified
OS installed: Windows11
Accessories: Power Adapter, User Manual

The Beelink GTR7 7840HS stands out against other mini PC with its high-quality build, quick, hassle-free setup, and superb gaming performance. Inside, the M.2 storage steals the show with transfer speeds that are rare to find on machines at this price point and helps ensure that this machine can hit well above its weight regarding video and gaming performance. 

Most notably, that speed comes into play when used as a 4K video editing solution; despite its size, it provides substantial power to edit 4K Log3 footage with relative ease, effects and all. 

Essentially this is an incredibly well-rounded machine that will appeal as one of the best mini PCs for gaming enthusiasts and creative professionals.

Price and Availablity

Beelink GTR7 7840HS

(Image credit: Future)

The Beelink GTR7 7840HS is available for purchase at the top end of the price scale from this style of Mini PC, but the specifications and performance justify the price. Considering its features and performance, this pricing is relatively budget-friendly, especially as a longer-term investment. 

However, it's important to note that the package includes the PC itself; essential peripherals like a monitor, keyboard, and mouse must be purchased separately. 

Additionally, while the system comes with 32GB DDR5 RAM and a 1TB PCIe 4.0 M.2 NVMe SSD, users looking for more memory and storage can opt for additional upgrades. Despite these considerations, the GTR7 7840HS provides a comprehensive and appealing option for many users.

  • Score: 4/5

Design

Beelink GTR7 7840HS

(Image credit: Future)

The Beelink GTR7 7840HS boasts a compact form that hides its powerful internals. The casing, composed of high-quality metal, feels durable and of a premium build, perfect for carting around if you need it, although it does come with a monitor mount in the box.

Alongside the standard 1TB M.2 PCIe 4.0 NVMe, there's a space slot for you to expand the onboard storage. The RAM is also expandable from the standard 32GB to 64GB of DDR5 memory for more intensive tasks, and upgrading is a great idea if you're considering using this for video editing.

On the front is a straight set of standard USB connections with a Type-A and C alongside a 3.5mm headphone jack and power button. The main ports with USB, HDMI and Network options are on the back.

The box is small and well-designed, if slightly unambitious, with easy but secure access to the internals using a screwdriver. In use, the commonly used ports are accessible on the front of the machine, with further ports neatly at the back. The style is tried and tested when it comes to design, and there's no doubt that it all works.

  • Design: 4/5

Features

Beelink GTR7 7840HS

(Image credit: Future)

The GTR7 is powered by the AMD Ryzen™ 7 7840HS processor at its heart. With a base frequency of 3.80 GHz and a turbo boost reaching an impressive 5.10 GHz, this CPU delivers swift performance across various tasks, from browsing to video editing. Complementing this is the integrated AMD Radeon™ GPU with 12 cores, clocked at 2700 MHz. This GPU handles graphics-intensive tasks and, through the test, renders high-quality visuals in gaming and creative applications.

As standard, the GTR7 has 32GB DDR5 memory installed across dual SO-DIMM slots. The machine's potential is further enhanced by the possibility of upgrading to a maximum of 64GB.

The mini PC features dual M.2 PCIe 4.0 NVMe slots. The pre-installed 1TB PCIe 4.0 M.2 NVMe SSD boasts transfer speeds of up to 7000MB/s. The storage is expandable up to 4TB in each slot, which is impressive for such small machines. 

Regarding connection ports on the rear, there are USB 2.0 and 3.2 ports, USB4 ports, DisplayPort, HDMI, and dual 2.5G LAN ports. The front features a 3.5mm audio jack, USB 3.2, Type-C and CLR CMOS. 

  • Features: 4/5

Performance

Beelink GTR7 7840HS

(Image credit: Future)
Benchmarks

3DMark Wild Life: 16937, Fire Strike: 7934, Time Spy:  2857
Cinebench R23: Multi-Core Score: 15784, Single-Core Score: 1755
GeekBench 5: Multi-Core Score: 12189, Single-Core Score: 2514
CrystalDiskMark: Read Speed: 5165.11 MB/s, Write Speed: 3131.03 MB/s
PCMark 10: 7268
Windows Experience Index: 8.2

In real-world scenarios, the GTR7 impressed. Its powerful AMD Ryzen™ 7 7840HS processor, combined with the capable GPU, enabled multiple applications to run smoothly without issue, video editing was possible, and gaming was smooth. The machine excelled in handling 4K video editing software, swiftly rendering edits and minimising wait times when rendering. 

Gaming performance is the focus of this machine, and it performed superbly. I tested Titles, such as Assasins Creed Valhalla and Red Dead Redemption, and all worked fine with a slight tweak of some of the Graphic settings to enable smooth gameplay. Games like Assassin's Creed Remastered played at 4K, and Red Dead Redemption II, while slightly adjusted in resolution and effects, proved very playable.

Despite the demands of multitasking and gaming, the GTR7 maintained a commendably cool temperature, no doubt helped by the combination of the MSC Technology-Vapor Chamber and System Fan. While you can hear the fans, they're not overly loud. 

The CrystalDiskMark results translated to impressive real-world speeds. Application launches were swift, and data transfers were nearly instantaneous, thanks to the PCIe 4.0 M.2 NVMe SSD. Large files, including 4K videos, were transferred with lightning speed, meaning I had to double-check that the files had transferred.

  • Performance: 5/5

Should you buy a Beelink GTR7 7840HS

The Beelink GTR7 7840HS design embraces sleek aesthetics and practicality, housing impressive internal technology like dual M.2 NVMe slots boasting speeds of up to 7000MB/s on paper and 5000MB/s in the real world. 

The AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS processor and 12-core GPU ensure exceptional gaming and multitasking. With expandable RAM, storage, quad-display support, and efficient cooling, this mini PC caters to creative professionals and gamers. While the price is competitive, it may not fit every budget, and its robust capabilities could be more than some require. A versatile powerhouse for those demanding more from their compact setup.

Beelink GTR7 7840HS

(Image credit: Future)

Report Card

Value: Priced competitively for its features and performance. (4/5)
Design: Stylish yet functional, with excellent build quality and compact size. (4/5)
Features: Impressive technologies, expandability, and connectivity options. (4.5/5)
Performance: Outstanding benchmark results translate to real-world power. (4.5/5) Total: A high-performing, feature-rich mini PC with good value. (4.5/5)

Why you should buy

Don't buy it if

Minisforum UM790 Pro review
2:06 pm |

Author: admin | Category: Computers Gadgets | Tags: , , | Comments: Off

Minisforum UM790 Pro: 30 second review

Minisforum UM790 Pro Specs

CPU: AMD Ryzen™ 9 7940HS Processor, 8 Cores/16 Threads (16M Cache, up to 5.2 GHz)
Graphics: AMD Radeon 780M
RAM: DDR5 Dual channel 32GB installed (SODIMM Slots×2, Up to 5600MHz, Max 64GB)
Storage: M.2 2280 PCIe4.0 SSD ×2 Slots, 1TB Installed
Rear Ports: RJ45 2.5G Ethernet Port×1, USB3.2 Gen2 Type-A Port ×4, HDMI 2.1 ×2
Front Ports: USB 4 x2, 3.5mm Headphone
Connectivity: M.2 2230 WIFI Support (Wi-Fi 6E, BlueTooth 5.3)
Audio: HDMI 2.1 ×2, Audio Jack ×1
Camera: (Not specified)
Size: 130mmx126mmx52.3mm
OS installed: Windows 11 Pro
Accessories: DC 19V(Adapter Included)

The Minisforum UM790 Pro impresses with its compact size and impressive performance. While its design is simple and somewhat boring, the setup is easy and efficient, and the ports and connectors are all where you would want them to be for pure practicality. 

The machine shines in gaming and 4K video editing tasks, making it an ideal choice for creative professionals. Marketed as a desktop replacement, it delivers exceptional power for its size and will appeal to anyone looking for versatility and performance, so ideal for creators. Despite its slightly mundane design, its capabilities as a compact power PC and its focus on gaming and content creation set it apart as an attractive choice and make it one of our choices for the best mini PCs.

Price and Availablity

Minisforum UM790 Pro

(Image credit: Future)

The Minisforum UM790 Pro is priced in the midrange for a high-end mini PC, so any way you look, it's one of the best PC purchases out there. Considering its impressive specifications and desktop-level processing power, this price point makes it a budget-friendly option for anyone needing high performance in a compact form. 

While the UM790 Pro offers powerful performance akin to a desktop PC, its limited upgradability should be considered. However, external GPUs and Hard drives can be attached, so it's not a huge issue when considering the RAM and internal storage option upgrades. The midrange price tag and simple design make this a strong and sensible choice. 

  • Score: 5/5

Design

Minisforum UM790 Pro

(Image credit: Future)

The Minisforum UM790 Pro is everything a compact Mini PC should be and offers a simple space-saving solution ideal for desktop and creative setups. While its exterior design appears fairly standard, its true capabilities lie inside. The machine is built with an emphasis on practicality, allowing it to easily mount to the back of a monitor, thereby maximising desk space. Its integrated metal body enhances durability while ensuring that it stays cool under intensive workloads.

While the UM790 Pro might not be as upgradable as traditional desktops, its dual-channel DDR5 memory slots allow for a maximum of 64GB RAM, catering to multitasking needs. Moreover, dual PCIe 4.0 SSD slots empower users to expand storage capacity and enhance data performance through RAID0 and RAID1 configurations.

  • Design: 4.5/5

Features

Minisforum UM790 Pro

(Image credit: Future)

The Minisforum UM790 Pro employs cutting-edge technologies, housing an AMD Ryzen™ 9 7940HS processor with up to 5.2 GHz boost and an AMD Radeon™ 780M GPU, delivering remarkable performance for gaming and intensive tasks.

The UM790 Pro's AMD Ryzen™ 9 7940HS processor boasts 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Radeon™ 780M graphics card ensures smooth visuals and seamless gaming, as well as sufficient for video and image editing tasks.

Backing up the processing is dual-channel DDR5 memory slots and support for frequencies up to 5600MHz; the UM790 Pro offers fast data access, a major consideration for content creators dealing with large files. 

Those large files are perfectly catered for by the M.2 2280 PCIe 4.0 SSD slots, of which there are two, although only one is filled off the shelf.

Ensuring connection options, there's a good range of ports, including USB3.2 Gen2 Type-A and USB4 ports and supporting high-resolution displays, there's HDMI 2.1 and USB4 video outputs.

Measuring 130mm x 126mm x 52.3mm, the UM790 Pro's compact size makes it suitable for limited desk spaces, and it's compatible with VESA mounting, which is a nice touch, especially in studios where you want the surface to be clear of cables and machines. 

Regarding the network connections, there's a 2.5G Ethernet port and Killer™ AX1675 Wi-Fi 6E network card; in the test, this all seemed more than fast and reliable enough for most workshop and studio tasks and gaming. 

  • Features: 4.5/5

Performance

Minisforum UM790 Pro

(Image credit: Future)
Benchmarks

3DMark Wild Life: 15402, Fire Strike: 7351, Time Spy: 2674 Cinebench R23: Multi-Core Score: 15874, Single-Core Score: 1834
GeekBench 5: Multi-Core Score: 12387,- Single-Core Score: 2714
CrystalDiskMark: Read Speed: 3905.29 MB/s Write Speed: 1970.44 MB/s
PCMark 10: 7110
Windows Experience Index: 8.2

The Minisforum UM790 Pro proves to be a solid performer through our series of benchmark tests, translating into outstanding real-world performance when used with Premiere Pro and Photoshop. Its AMD Ryzen™ 9 7940HS processor, coupled with the AMD Radeon™ 780M GPU handled games, images and video with relative ease. 

In 3DMark Wild Life, the UM790 Pro achieved a Graphics Score of 15402, reflecting the gaming performance. Fire Strike yielded a Graphics Score of 7351, with additional scores highlighting its CPU and combined performance.

Time Spy recorded a Graphics Score of 2674 and a CPU Score of 10862, illustrating its multifaceted capabilities. In Cinebench R23, the machine showcased a Multi-Core Score of 15874, affirming its computational strength and this was again reflected in the video editing.

GeekBench 5 reflected the other results with a Multi-Core and Single-Core Scores of 12387 and 2714, respectively. CrystalDiskMark revealed read and write speeds of 3905.29 MB/s and 1970.44 MB/s, demonstrating a decent but not remarkable transfer speed. 

PCMark 10 returned a Score of 7110, reinforcing the well-rounded performance which was topped off with a Windows Experience Index with a score of 8.2.

  • Performance: 4.5/5

Should you buy a Minisforum UM790 Pro

The Minisforum UM790 Pro presents a powerful solution in a compact form. With exceptional performance that outshines its peers in this price range, it proves itself as a reliable and mini PC and desktop replacememnt. Its unassuming design might lack flair, but it's a testament to functionality, easily fitting into any professional environment. 

From solid gaming capabilities to smooth video editing, the UM790 Pro delivers on multiple fronts. While it might not be the choice for those seeking a design that pops or offers a multi coloured light show, its performance-focused approach and simplicity make it a great option.

Minisforum UM790

(Image credit: Future)

Value: Priced affordably for its capabilities, providing desktop-level power. (5/5)
Design: Simple and practical, but lacking visual flair. (3/5)
Features: Cutting-edge technologies, versatile CPU, GPU, RAM, and storage options. (4.5/5)
Performance: Impressive benchmark scores translate to exceptional real-world performance. (4.5/5)
Total: A solid mini PC with powerful performance and practical design, suited for various tasks. (4/5)

Why you should buy

Don't buy it if

T-Bao MiniPC + NAS R3 review
2:03 pm |

Author: admin | Category: Computers Gadgets | Tags: , , | Comments: Off

T-Bao MiniPC + NAS R3: 30 second review

T-Bao MiniPC + NAS R3 Specs

CPU: AMD Ryzen™ 5 5500U, 2.1-4.0GHz
Graphics: AMD Radeon™ Graphics 7
RAM: 16GB DDR4
Storage: 512GB M.2 NVME 2280 SSD
Rear Ports: 1 x Type-C, - 1 x DP Port, - 1 x HDMI, 2 x USB 3.0, 2 x USB 2.0, 1 x Audio Jack, 2 x RJ45 2.5G
Front Ports: N/A
Connectivity: WiFi6 -802.11AX, Bluetooth BT5.2, LAN Support RJ45 2.5Gx2
Audio: Not specified
Camera: Not specified
Size: Product Size (L x W x H): 16.2 x 16.2 x 19.8cm
OS installed: Windows 11 Home
Accessories: 1x Power Adapter, 1x SATA Cable, 1x User Manual

The T-BAO MiniPC + NAS R3 stands out from many of the best mini PCs by being an extremely versatile option that has been tailored for the needs of day-to-day use. Less boxy and more Air Purifier by design T-Bao has deliberately focused on seamless integration into home aesthetics, as well as computing functionality.

Crafted to cater to everyday computing demands, the T-BAO MiniPC + NAS R3 presents a cheap and easy-to-use solution for anyone wanting something other than pure gaming performance. Its compact form and stylish if slightly plasticy design means it looks equally in place on your desk or living room.

The big selling point of the T-BAO MiniPC + NAS R3 is its integrated NAS system. This integration isn't an afterthought but a fundamental design of the machine. It's only an entry-level NAS but still, in a machine of this size, it's impressive with the capacity for two 3.5-inch HDDs. Essentially with two drives installed, this machine transforms a compact daily computer into a hub for all your multimedia and files which is why we consider it one of the top mini PCs in its class. 

Powering the system is an AMD Ryzen 5 5500U processor which is an excellent balance between price and performance for this style of machine. 

Price and Availablity

T-Bao

(Image credit: Future)

The T-BAO MiniPC + NAS R3 arrives at an affordable price and is designed to cater to a wide range of users. The machine is positioned for day-to-day use with a specification and design that will cater to most word processing, web browsing, multimedia and the occasional use for games. 

One of the most enticing aspects of the T-BAO MiniPC + NAS R3 is its budget-friendly price point. If you're looking for a cost-effective option, this machine really does pack in quite a bit for the price and with features such as the NAS and Network hub that aren't that common at this level. 

While the machine primarily focuses on day-to-day tasks, its design seamlessly slots into your home design with a far more aesthetic look than the small box design of most other mini PCs. Its compact dimensions ensure it doesn't occupy too much space.

The T-Bao MiniPC + NAS is available for a reasonable amount and the versatile design and the inclusion of a simplified NAS system make it a compelling option if you're looking for an all-in-one solution that caters to day-to-day computing, multimedia enjoyment, and mass storage.

  • Score: 4/5

Design

T-Bao

(Image credit: Future)

The T-BAO MiniPC + NAS R3 impresses with a design that seamlessly blends functionality and aesthetics. Its small footprint makes it an unobtrusive addition to any workspace. The standout feature for this small machine is the provision for two 3.5-inch HDDs, enabling easy storage expansion without compromising on elegance. In this test I popped in two inexpensive 500GB WD Green Drives effectively quadrupling the storage size in a little under two minutes without the need for any tools. 

The through-type cooling design, supported by a generously-sized base fan, ensures excellent heat dissipation for consistent performance while maintaining nice quiet operation even when some of the task such as basic video editing push the resources of the machine. 

The MiniPC + NAS R3 also excels in connectivity, offering a range of connection options including USB, HDMI, DP, and more, making peripheral integration simple. The distinctive design is reminiscent of an air purifier which may appeal to some people, it also makes it more at home when trying to blend it into a living area rather than a home office.

While the overall design is good the quality of the materials does let it down and some flexing of the outer case was initially required to align all ports correctly. The other issue is the caddy loading system for the two 3.5-inch HDDs, while a great idea the caddies are a little fiddly and cheap feeling, however, they;re simple to use.

  • Design: 3/5

Features

T-Bao

(Image credit: Future)

The T-bao R3 Mini PC brings together a collection of features that elevate both performance and convenience. At its core, the device is powered by an AMD Ryzen 5 5500U processor and AMD Radeon Graphics 7. This combination ensures solid performance for most day-to-day tasks, including multimedia.

The standout feature is its built-in NAS functionality, which transforms the Mini PC into a centralized storage hub. The NAS system is designed to accommodate two 3.5-inch hard drives, allowing you to quickly expand your storage beyond the basic 512GB that comes preinstalled.

This makes the machine an ideal solution if you're seeking to store an extensive collection of media libraries, files, and more. What truly stands out is its ease of use; even someone with no prior experience can navigate this simple NAS functionality, especially with the support of the Windows Storage Spaces application.

The T-bao R3 Mini PC boasts fast network connectivity, powered by WiFi 6 and two 2.5G Ethernet ports. In terms of other connections, a bank of connectors adorns the rear, including USB 2.0, USB 3.0, HDMI, DP, and Type-C ports.

  • Features: 4/5

Performance

T-Bao

(Image credit: Future)
Benchmarks

3DMark Wild Life: 6903, Fire Strike: 3491, Time Spy: 1006
Cinebench R23: Multi-Core Score: 3270, Single-Core Score: 1152
GeekBench 5: Multi-Core Score: 5820, Single-Core Score: 1479
CrystalDiskMark: Read Speed: 2078.72MB/s, Write Speed: 1665.39MB/s
PCMark 10: Score: 4948
Windows Experience Index: Score: 8.1

The T-Bao MiniPC + NAS R3 strikes a balance between performance and practicality. While it might not be a powerhouse, it proves itself as a versatile day-to-day performer.

In 3DMark Wild Life, the graphics score of 6903 showcases the machine's capability to handle multimedia tasks and casual gaming without any issue. It comfortably accommodates everyday graphic demands and even ventures into light gaming territory with decent visuals.

The Fire Strike benchmark yielded a graphics score of 3491, with the physics score hitting 14818 and the combined score reaching 1131. These scores underline the machine's ability to handle various tasks, from graphics-heavy applications to multitasking, albeit within reasonable boundaries.

The Time Spy benchmark presented a graphics score of 1006 and a CPU score of 4519, reflecting the MiniPC + NAS R3's aptitude for multimedia playback, productivity, and light content creation. It performs well in various scenarios, such as photo and video editing, offering smooth multitasking capabilities.

Cinebench R23 showcased a multi-core score of 3270 and a single-core score of 1152, reaffirming the machine's suitability for handling multiple tasks simultaneously and its efficiency in single-threaded processes. Editing video in Premiere Pro showed it sailed through 1080p edits but started to stuggle with more demanding 4K.

GeekBench 5 revealed a multi-core score of 5820 and a single-core score of 1479 again a middle-of-the-road score.

CrystalDiskMark demonstrated a read speed of 2078.72MB/s and a write speed of 1665.39MB/s, showing the device's storage speed, which aligns well with its intended use as a day-to-day computing solution. While this speed is slower than some, for almost all tasks this is still an impressive result. 

Finally with a PCMark 10 score of 4948 and a Windows Experience Index score of 8.1 this all comes together to further emphasise the device's practicality for everyday work, multimedia and a bit of gaming. 

Should you buy a T-Bao MiniPC + NAS R3

The T-Bao MiniPC + NAS R3 offers a great blend of convenience and functionality. Designed with day-to-day users in mind, its sleek form seamlessly integrates into home setups with a design that's more air purifier than PC. 

The MiniPC + NAS R3 is a versatile multimedia hub, thanks to its AMD Ryzen 5 5500U processor, ample RAM, and expandable storage. The built-in NAS functionality, while simple, is the standout feature, streamlining file storage. However, the device may not suffice for demanding gamers or graphics-intensive tasks. Affordably priced, this mini PC presents an attractive solution if you're looking for a compact, stylish computing solution with storage versatility.

T-Bao

(Image credit: Future)

Value: A versatile hybrid at an attractive price point. (4/5)
Design: Compact and efficient, but average build quality. (3/5)
Features: Impressive NAS integration and storage potential. (4/5)
Performance: Moderate processing and graphics capabilities. (3/5)
Total: A well-rounded choice for multitaskers and storage enthusiasts. (4/5)

Why you should buy

Don't buy it if

« Previous PageNext Page »