Organizer
Gadget news
Patriot Viper VP4300 review: a long-lasting SSD workhorse for PC and PS5
1:08 am | February 23, 2024

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

Patriot Viper VP4300: Two-minute review

With Sony’s PlayStation 5 offering support for a handful of SSD drive types, PC and console gamers alike have more choices when it comes to expandable storage and the Patriot Viper VP4300 comes with a lot to recommend it. 

The Viper VP4300 SSD utilizes PCIe Gen4 x4 NVMe technology and includes a DDR4 DRAM cache. It offers two heat shield design options: an aluminum heat shield & graphene heatshield, both available on the 1TB and 2TB variants. Patriot promises sequential read speeds up to 7,400MB/s and sequential write speeds up to 6,800MB/s, and this is born out in my testing. 

The 2TB SKU we got in for review has a US MSRP of $189.99 (about £155/AU$270), which isn't cheap, but few, if any, of the best SSD models that offer this kind of performance will be any cheaper right now. The 1TB SKU comes in much cheaper at $119.99 (about £100/AU$168), so if you're on something of a budget, you do have some options here.

Plus, there’s so much to appreciate with the Viper VP4300 SSD that it's easily the best M.2 SSD for gamers who might want to use it in their PC or PS5, making it a worthwhile investment. 

Whatever gaming machine you're buying it for, it'll work, and the graphene heatshield will help keep things cool inside your PS5 while the aluminum heatshield will do the same in your PC.

When it comes to PC Gaming, the SSD drive’s performance is respectable though there were some weak spots, like its lower PassMark Disk benchmark score. Its CrystalDiskMark 8 scores were excellent and in line with the promised speed and expectations for a drive such as this. 

This means that it’s speedy when it comes to tasks like installations or copying, saving, and transferring files, and my lived experience with it indicates that some anomalous scores we got during benchmarking were indeed outliers (but not all).  

A Patriot Viper VP4300 on a desk

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

However, PC gamers should know that there are definitely faster SSD choices out there, especially if you have a PCIe 5.0-capable system. 

VR games, for example, are notorious for long load times on PC and so the observed lower read speed on the Viper VP4300 could impact wait times with these kinds of cases. Even playing more visually low-impactful games like SuperHot VR and Cooking Simulator VR took nearly a full minute to get from SteamVR launching to the main menu screen. 

More traditional non-VR games were affected by lower reading times as well. Alan Wake 2 and Cyberpunk 2077 took a bit longer than usual to load from start up to main menu but weren’t annoyingly slow. Even the initial load from the main menu to the most recent checkpoint took a little bit more time. 

On the other hand, the Viper VP4300 may be great for gamers who are also creatives since export times to the drive in Adobe Premiere Pro were very zippy.

A Patriot Viper VP4300 in a motherboard

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

One huge positive in the Viper VP4300's column is its 2000TBW endurance rating, in addition to its standard five-year warranty. This means that theoretically, PC gamers who blow through their 2TB SSD drive storage can get a bigger storage replacement and use the Viper VP4300 on their PS5. Adding to those longer-lasting capabilities are the two heatsink options. 

Benchmarks

Here's how the Patriot Viper VP4300 performed in our benchmark tests:
CrystalDiskMark Sequential: 7,389 read / 6,799 write
CrystalDiskMark Random Q32: 4,459 read / 3,805 write
Second 25GB file copy: 16 seconds
25GB file transferrate : 1,677 MB/s
PCMark10 SSD Overall: 2,660
PCMark10 SSD Memory Bandwidth: 323.93 MB/s

Our review unit came with the aluminum and graphene heat shields, though these definitely aren't hot-swappable. During testing, the Viper VP4300 got as hot as 57 degrees C when gaming but poked out a bit.

The other graphene headshield does look a bit better and leaves a smaller profile, especially useful for devices like laptops or the PS5. More so than gaming performance, it’s clear that the Patriot Viper VP4300's real niche is in its endurance.

While its read speeds don't top the charts, the Viper VP4300’s respectable performance, especially in write-intensive tasks, and compatibility with PS5 make it a versatile option that any gamer should consider. Additionally, its robust 2000TBW endurance and five-year warranty underscore its longevity, making the Viper VP4300 a valuable investment for gamers and creatives seeking reliable, high-performance storage.

A Patriot Viper VP4300 on a desk

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Should you buy the Patriot Viper VP4300?

Buy the Patriot Viper VP4300  if...

You want an SSD compatible with Sony’s PS5
PC gamers and PlayStation 5 owners  in need of additional storage may have a viable option 

You require an SSD that’ll last a while
Having a 2000TBW endurance and five-year warranty means this SSD is going to last a long time. 

Don't buy it if...

You want the absolute best in gaming performance
Again, having lower reading benchmarks means gaming performance for loading may not be up to snuff compared to rival SSDs available around the same price.  

You need an SSD that’s affordable
The 2TB version of the Patriot Viper VP4300 is around $150 which many may find expensive compared to others that offer similar or better performance.  

Patriot Viper VP4300: Also consider

If my Patriot Viper VP4300 review has you looking for other options, here are two more SSDs to consider...

First reviewed January 2024

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

Adata SE920 external SSD review
4:46 pm | February 8, 2024

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

Adata SE920: One-minute review

The Adata SE920 stands out with its sleek metal exterior and unique expanding design, which is aimed at enhancing cooling during heavy use. Its compact form factor initially suggests premium quality. However, upon closer inspection, the expansion mechanism, although functional, feels somewhat roughly machined. This leads to a bit of play in the case and a lack of precision in its construction.

Performance-wise, the SE920 is exceptional. It delivers on its promise of fast transfer speeds, closely matching Adata's advertised rates - having tested the best SSDs around, we can say that's a rarity in itself. Yet, to achieve these speeds, particularly the faster write speeds, it requires turning off the write cache. This is a straightforward process on a PC but demands technical know-how on Mac or Linux systems, involving manual adjustments via the Terminal.

Despite these minor drawbacks, the SE920 is one of the fastest external SSDs we've tried at this price range. The blend of high-speed performance and a somewhat lacking build quality, alongside the need for manual tweaks to unlock its full potential, makes it a mixed bag. It's a powerhouse in data transfer speed, but these nuances might give some users pause.

Adata SE920: Pricing and availability

  • How much does it cost? £179
  • When is it available? Now
  • Where can you get it? It is available for sale in the US, UK and Australia

The Adata SE920 1TB External SSD is available for purchase in Europe. It is priced at 142 Euros on OpenShop, i.e., a competitive price for a device of its capabilities. In the UK, the SSD is offered at £179 on ShopBetter24.co.uk. 

These prices reflect the SSD's positioning in the market as a high-performance yet reasonably priced external storage solution. 

ADATA SE920

(Image credit: Alastair Jennings)

Adata SE920: Benchmark

Using AJA System Test Light, the Adata SE920 1TB External SSD achieved exceptional speeds with a read speed of 3201MB/s and a write speed of 3045MB/s however, to achieve these write speeds the write cache for the drive needed to be switched off. These speeds show the drive's ability to handle large files and demanding applications.

ADATA SE920

(Image credit: Alastair Jennings)

Adata SE920: Specs

Adata SE920: Build and Handling

Like all the best portable SSDs, the Adata SE920 1TB initially impresses with its full metal exterior, suggesting a premium build. However, its unique expanding mechanism for activating the internal cooling fan reveals a less precise construction. This extension, while functional for cooling, feels somewhat loose and cheaply machined compared to competitors.

Despite this, the drive is robust enough for general use and can withstand minor knocks, though a bit more care in handling compared to other SSDs might be advisable. Its simplicity of design, with the notable USB4 connector, adds to its sleek look. The drive is conveniently powered via USB, eliminating the need for an additional power supply and offering plug-and-play ease.

Performance-wise, the drive is generally fast, though some slowdown in writing data is noted. Disabling write caching, a common tweak for Mac and Linux systems, resolves this issue. The SE920 is straightforward, focusing purely on storage without integrated software, making it a sleek and uncomplicated choice for users valuing speed and simplicity in their external SSD.

Lexar Play 1TB MicroSD Card

(Image credit: Ali Jennings)

Adata SE920: Performance

The Adata SE920 1TB external SSD is tailored for gamers and creative professionals, offering a blend of speed and efficiency. Its performance shows read speeds ranging from 3165MB/s to 3783MB/s and write speeds from 3251MB/s to 3268MB/s, depending on the benchmark tool. If you're a gamer, then these speeds are ideal, ensuring rapid game loading and smooth performance, especially for titles with extensive graphics and large file sizes.

On the other hand, if you're a creator, the SE920's swift data transfer rates are a significant advantage. Whether it's moving large video files, quickly accessing multiple high-resolution images or seamless editing of content, the speed offered by this SSD can significantly enhance workflow - definitely one to pair with any of the best video editing laptops for increased storage. However, its storage capacity, capped at 1TB and even at 2TB, might be a limitation for those handling extensive media files. 

Additionally, the drive's performance on different operating systems needs consideration. The notable slowdown in write speeds with write caching enabled on Mac and Linux systems can be worked around by manual adjustments through Terminal, but this requires additional technical steps.

The Adata SE920 delivers high-speed performance, making it a solid choice for gamers and creators who prioritize speed. However, its storage capacity and the need for manual adjustments on certain systems may limit its appeal.

ADATA SE920

(Image credit: Alastair Jennings)

Should I buy the Adata SE920 external SSD?

How I tested the Adata SE920 external SSD

For this external SSD, I connected it to several different computers, including several PCs, A MacBook Pro and a Mac Pro 2013 running a version of Linux. Before starting this test, the drive was reformated to give the greatest compatibility for real-world tests and also for testing through the benchmarking software.

The software used included the latest versions of CrystalDiskMark, Atto, AS SSD and AJA benchmarks, noting the best scores achieved in each. They are all free and can be downloaded by anyone. After the standard benchmarks, I then used the SSD for several tasks, including using it to store the files that were being used to edit 4K video from a Canon EOS R5 C and Sony A7 IV.

Adata Elite UE800 1TB portable SSD review: Move over traditional external SSDs, there’s a new kid on the storage block
3:41 pm | January 30, 2024

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

Adata Elite UE800: One-minute review

Adata strikes again with the UE800, a USB flash drive that delivers what was promised: a stunning overall performance wrapped in a solid package that ticks all boxes and is barely bigger than an average adult thumb. Manufacturers can’t really go wrong when it comes to getting the basics right; after all, USB sticks - as they are colloquially known - have been around for more than two decades and the UE800 fits that template to a tee. A rectangular body with a push-out Type-C connector (which means it can be used by a smartphone or tablet with OTG enabled), a capless design (so no caps to be lost), a brush-metal finish with an activity light and a lanyard hole (although I wouldn’t recommend dangling your storage device at the end of a lanyard). 

There’s no software (data recovery software, encryption or a backup application), cables or other accessories and its speeds (up to 1.05GB/s, delivered thanks to USB 3.2 Gen 2) should be sufficient for most use cases until USB 4 becomes mainstream. As for the price, you can get it for as little as $69.99 from Amazon, which is far cheaper than the competition. You need to have Prime as you’d otherwise pay $99.99; speaking of which, I would love Amazon to offer a 3-year data and photo protection plan for the UE800. After all, it is available for just under $6 (about £4.70, AU$9) for the Kingston DataTraveler Max and can be a real sanity saver. 

Adata UE800 1TB SSD on a window sill during our test and review process

(Image credit: Adata)

Adata Elite UE800: Pricing and availability

  • How much does it cost at the time of writing? $69.99 on Amazon (about £55, AU$106) 
  • When is it available? It is available now 
  • Where can you get it? It is available in the the US and other countries 

The AELI-UE800-1T-CSG as it is known is available in 512GB and 2TB capacities. The latter selling for a better-than-expected $129.99 (about £102, AU$197); personally I’d rather get that one as it delivers enhanced value-for-money.  

Adata UE800 1TB SSD on a window sill during our test and review process

(Image credit: Adata)

Adata UE800: Benchmark

In a nutshell, the Adata Elite UE800 delivered on the promised 1,050/1,000 MBps speeds, coming close to 1.1GBps on CDM write and inching into 1GBps territory on write, which is superb. Yes, CrystalDiskMark tends to be overtly generous as it is a synthetic benchmark but overall, it was a good showing. The drive became warm on extensive use which was expected. 

Adata UE800: Specs

Should I buy the Adata UE800?

Adata UE800 1TB SSD on a window sill during our test and review process

(Image credit: Adata)

Adata UE800 alternatives

Rugged USB flash drives: Where are they?

There are scores of rugged hard drives and portable SSDs that are IP-rated or have been put through the MIL-STD-810G. Yet I couldn’t find a single IP-rated USB flash drive out there. There’s no real reason why that is the case other than the perceived lack of demand. Drives like the UE800 are intrinsically less sturdy than the likes of the MS70 because of moving parts. And yet, even the latter is not deemed good enough to carry any IP rating. Let’s hope that this will change in a near future.

 Let’s start with the Silicon Power MS70. Alastair Jennings tested the 2TB version giving it a 4.5 stars; his biggest bugbear was the presence of USB Type-A, which means that you can’t use it with a smartphone as it requires a Type-C adaptor. 

Plus it is chunkier because it is more robustly built, probably a preferred solution should you want a more resilient portable storage device.

The DataTraveler Max by Kingston is the only one that comes from what I’d call a Tier-1 vendor, one that is almost a household name (a la Seagate or Sandisk).

How I tested the Adata UE800

After having formatted the Adata UE800 to exFAT, I test it the same way I test other storage components (external HDD, microSD cards etc). I use the latest versions of CrystalDiskMark, Atto, AS SSD and AJA benchmarks, noting the best scores achieved in each. They are all free and can be downloaded by anyone. I then transfer a folder of files, roughly 10GB in size, to get a rough idea of real life performance. 

Adata UE800 1TB SSD on a window sill during our test and review process

(Image credit: Adata)
Silicon Power MS70 2TB portable external SSD review
8:35 pm | January 22, 2024

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

Silicon Power MS70: One-minute review

The Silicon Power MS70 2TB SSD is a blend of speed, capacity, and durability. It's a compact device, measuring just 71 x 21 x 10mm and weighing in at just 14g, making it an ideal travel companion for those needing substantial storage on the go. The exterior is full aluminium with touches of rubber throughout the construction, which gives it a sturdy, premium feel as well as the practicality of some shock resistance.

We've tested hundreds of the best portable SSDs, and performance-wise, the MS70 stands out with its impressive read and write speeds, quoted as 1050MB/s and 850MB/s, respectively. These speeds are achievable due to the USB 3.2 Gen 2 interface, ensuring quick file transfers, which will appeal to creative professionals. Moreover, it supports a broad range of operating systems, from Windows and Mac to Linux, Android, and iOS, although the Type-C adapter is needed.

However, the MS70 isn't without its drawbacks. The major one is the use of an adapter for USB-C connections, which, while maintaining speed, adds an extra component to keep track of. 

Despite this minor issue, the Silicon Power MS70 2TB remains an excellent choice for anyone seeking high-speed, large-capacity external storage. Its performance is reliable, and the build quality is excellent, making it a worthwhile investment for anyone needing compact, fast and large storage.

Silicon Power MS70: Pricing and availability

  • How much does it cost? $114
  • When is it available? Now
  • Where can you get it? It is available for sale in the US, UK and Australia

The Silicon Power MS70 2TB and lesser capacity versions are widely available.

Silicon Power 2TB MS70

(Image credit: Ali Jennings)

Silicon Power MS70: Benchmark

Using AJA System Test Light, the MS70 achieved remarkable speeds with a read speed of 1042.17MB/s and a write speed of 1017.53MB/s; this actually exceeds the stated write speed from the manufacturer. These speeds show the drive's capability to handle large files and demanding applications.

Silicon Power 2TB MS70

(Image credit: Ali Jennings)

Silicon Power MS70: Specs

Silicon Power MS70: Build and Handling

The MS70 impresses with its robust and sleek design. At first look, the drive could easily be mistaken for a standard Type-A USB key, with the stick-like body and USB connector covered by a rubber cap on the end. It's only the markings on the body of the drive that highlight that this may actually be something more. 

Measuring just 71x21x10mm and weighing a mere 14g, the drive is all about portability and as USB sticks have proven over the years, the design for this drive makes it incredibly easy to use, with no cables, no fuss; just plug it in and go. Or at least almost; the one downside here is that the drive utilises an integral USB Type-A connector, which means that an adapter is needed if you wish to plug it into a Type-C port. Otherwise, the drive's construction features a premium combination of aluminium and rubber, giving it both durability if chucked in a kit bag and a stylish look. 

One of the design aspects that really stands out is the compact size. This size and shape means that it can easily pop into a backpack or laptop pocket, and the shape and weight won't add too much bulk. One issue you may have with the size is that it could easily get lost amongst everything else you're carrying, which is why there's a small leash loop at the end so you can tether it to your bag or attach something that makes it easy to spot amongst everything else. 

The build and handling in almost all situations are faultless, with one of the only issues that did occur through the testing being the positioning of the protective cap. This cap is secured to the body of the drive and helps to protect the USB type-A connector. However, the issue is that it folds back and can obscure other ports, and if those ports are in use, especially on Mini PCs, then things can get fiddly. However, if you're on the move, you're more likely to be using a laptop, in which case this isn't an issue. 

Silicon Power 2TB MS70

(Image credit: Ali Jennings)

Silicon Power MS70: Performance

In our tests, we found the SSD delivers solid performance across various benchmarks, though it is not without its design quirks impacting its usability. One such issue is the cap design, which can obstruct easy plugging into vertically aligned USB ports found on devices like any of the best mini PCs. This necessitates some manoeuvring or repositioning of the SSD for a proper connection.

Additionally, the drive's USB Type-A interface, while offering excellent backward compatibility, presents a slight inconvenience for users with modern laptops or devices equipped primarily with USB-C ports. The need for an adapter, though, is a minor issue.

Performance-wise, the MS70 shows impressive results in speed tests. In CrystalDiskMark, it achieved read and write speeds of 1041.48MB/s and 1010.78MB/s, respectively. These figures nearly match the manufacturer's claimed speeds.

AJA test results showed a read speed of 86.9MB/s and a write speed of 911MB/s. The read speed here is notably lower, which might be attributed to the specific testing parameters or file types used in AJA tests. Despite this, the high write speed maintains the theme that this is a high-performing SSD.

ATTO Disk Benchmark presented more consistent results, with the MS70 clocking in at 930.91MB/s for reading and 937.30MB/s for writing. Lastly, the AS SSD Benchmark recorded read and write speeds of 897.64MB/s and 883.57MB/s. While slightly lower than other tests, these speeds are still decent and highlight the reliability of the SSD's performance.

Silicon Power 2TB MS70

(Image credit: Ali Jennings)

Should I buy the Silicon Power MS70?

How I tested the Silicon Power MS70

Before starting this test, the card was reformated to give the greatest compatibility for real-world tests using the exFAT format and also for testing through the benchmarking software.

The software used included the latest versions of CrystalDiskMark, Atto, AS SSD and AJA benchmarks, noting the best scores achieved in each. They are all free and can be downloaded by anyone. After the standard benchmarks, I then use the SSD as both a storage drive on the go and as a working drive to edit 1080P and 4K video with DaVinci Resolve and Premiere Pro. I then transfer a folder of files, roughly 10GB in size, to get a rough idea of real-life performance. 

Integral Memory SlimXpress 1TB portable SSD review: a solid performer with a great price tag
1:57 pm | December 8, 2023

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

Integral Memory SlimXpress: One-minute review

Integral Memory SlimXpress SSD during our tests

(Image credit: Integral )

Integral Memory may not be a household name in the global storage market but it has carved a niche in the UK one where it caught my attention in 2016 by launching what was then the largest SSD ever, the SVR100 and its enormous 8TB capacity. I’ve got myself the SlimXpress, its latest external SSD. There’s no denying that there’s an air of resemblance between Integral Memory’s metal champion and the Netac Z Slim which we recently reviewed. The one we’re reviewing today however differs on three important points: It is available only in the UK, is much faster and has a shorter warranty. Other than that the solid black aluminum chassis that protects the delicate electronic components, the location of the USB port and the short cables lead me to believe that both Netac and Integral are using the same original design manufacturer (ODM). 

The SlimXpress though manages to pull itself ahead of Netac when it comes to pricing and performance, positioning itself as a viable alternative to better established brands, although not by much. Not bigger than a pack of chewing gum (only 106mm x 32mm x 9mm), it offers USB 3.2 Gen 2, which is the highest mainstream speed (USB 4, USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 and Thunderbolt are still very much niche technologies) and I’d wish Integral had bundled a data recovery software or a backup application of some sort. 

Integral Memory SlimXpress: Pricing and availability

Integral Memory SlimXpress SSD during our tests

(Image credit: Integral )
  • How much does it cost? £55.99
  • When is it available? 
  • Where can you get it? It is available in the UK only

As a potential candidate for our best portable SSD buying guide, the SlimXpress loses out on availability as it is a UK-only product. It is available in capacities ranging from 500GB to 4TB; I reviewed the 1TB model. 

Integral Memory SlimXpress: Benchmark

Integral Memory SlimXpress SSD during our tests

(Image credit: Integral )

On the whole, Integral delivered on the advertised 1.05/1GBps speeds, coming close to 1.1GBps on CDM write and inching into 1GBps territory on write, which is admirable. The drive became warm on extensive use which was expected. I didn’t test the drive with the bundled adaptor but I’d recommend sticking to USB Type-C to enjoy the higher transfer rates. 

Integral Memory SlimXpress: Specs

Should I buy the Integral Memory SlimXpress?

Integral Memory SlimXpress SSD during our tests

(Image credit: Integral )

Integral Memory SlimXpress alternatives

The Z Slim from Netac looks like a twin brother to the SlimXpress 1TB and is a good 15% cheaper than its rival with a much longer warranty. However, it is also much slower which reduces its appeal. Just bear in mind though that prices change all the time. As I was finishing this review, Netac introduced a 20% discount on the ZX10, a faster version of the Z Slim. The discount brought down its price in line with the Integral SlimXpress but with a much longer warranty. 

The Crucial X8 is just a few pounds more expensive and matches Integral’s performance while delivering a much longer warranty. The backing of Micron, one of the world’s largest memory manufacturers, gives it the edge on the SlimXpress

The Crucial X6 is a slower, cheaper and smaller version of the X8 above. It competes with the Z Slim but is one to be considered as well due to its longer warranty and the presence of Micron as the parent brand. 

How I tested the Integral Memory SlimXpress

After having formatted the Integral SlimXpress to exFAT, I test it the same way I test other storage components (external HDD, microSD cards etc). I use the latest versions of CrystalDiskMark, Atto, AS SSD and AJA benchmarks, noting the best scores achieved in each. They are all free and can be downloaded by anyone. I then transfer a folder of files, roughly 10GB in size, to get a rough idea of real life performance.

Intel Core i9-14900K review: more of a Raptor Lake overclock than a refresh
4:00 pm | October 17, 2023

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 Core i7-14700K review: salvaging Raptor Lake Refresh with i9-13900K performance
4:00 pm |

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 i5-14600K review: wait for Meteor Lake
4:00 pm |

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

Intel Core i5-14600K: Two-minute review

The Intel Core i5-14600K is not the kind of processor you're really going to want to upgrade to, despite technically offering the best value of any processor I've tested.

First, the good. This is one of the best processor values you're going to find on the market, no matter what happens with the price of its predecessor. Currently, it has the best performance for its $319 price tag (about £255/AU$465), and AMD's competing Ryzen 5 7600X isn't all that close. If you're looking to get the most bang for your buck today, then the Intel Core i5-14600K is it.

In terms of performance, this isn't a bad chip at all; I'd even say it's a great one if you take its predecessor out of the running, which will inevitably happen as its last remaining stock gets bought up. It doesn't have the performance of the Intel Core i7-14700K, but that's a workhorse chip, not the kind that's meant to power the best computers for the home or the best budget gaming PCs as these chips start making their way into prebuilt systems in the next couple of months.

For a family computer or one that's just meant for general, every day use, then this chip is more than capable of handling whatever y'll need it for. It can even handle gaming fairly well thanks to its strong single core performance. So, on paper at least, the Core i5-14600K is the best Intel processor for the mainstream user as far as performance goes.

The real problem with the i5-14600K is that its performance is tragically close to the Core i5-13600K's. And even though the MSRP of the Intel Core i5-13600K is technically higher than that of the Core i5-14600K, it's not going to remain that way for very long at all.

The real problem with the i5-14600K, and one that effectively sinks any reason to buy it, is that its performance is tragically close to the Core i5-13600K's.

As long as the i5-13600K is on sale, it will be the better value, and you really won't even notice a difference between the two chips in terms of day-to day-performance.

That's because there's no difference between the specs of the 14600K vs 13600K, other than a slightly faster turbo clock speed for the 14600K's six performance cores.

While this does translate into some increased performance, it comes at the cost of higher power draw and temperature. During testing, this chip hit a maximum temperature of 101ºC, which is frankly astounding for an i5. And I was using one of the best CPU coolers around, the MSI MAG Coreliquid E360 AIO, which should be more than enough to keep the temperature in check to prevent throttling.

Image 1 of 13

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Synthetic benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

Looking at the chip's actual performance, the Core i5-14600K beats the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X and the Intel Core i5-13600K in single core performance, multi core performance, and with productivity workloads, on average. Other than its roughly 44% better average multi core performance against the Ryzen 5 7600X, the Core i5-14600K is within 3% to 4% of its competing chips.

Image 1 of 7

Creative benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Creative benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Creative benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Creative benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Creative benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Creative benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Creative benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

In creative workloads, the Core i5-14600K again manages to outperform the Ryzen 5 7600X by about 31% on average, but it's just 2.4% better than its predecessor, and none of these chips are especially great at creative content work. If you're messing around with family albums or cutting up TikTok videos, any one of these chips could do that fairly easily. For heavier-duty workloads like video encoding and 3D rendering, the Intel chips hold up better than the mainstream Ryzen 5, but these chips really aren't practical for that purpose.

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)

On the gaming front, it's more of the same, though now at least the Ryzen 5 7600X is back in the mix. Overall, the Core i5-14600K beats its 13th-gen predecessor and AMD's rival chip by about 2.1% and 3.2% respectively.

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)

All of this comes at the cost of higher power draw and hotter CPU temperatures, though, which isn't good especially for getting so little in return. What you really have here is an overclocked i5-13600K, and you can do that yourself and save some money by buying the 13600K when it goes on sale, which is will.

An Intel Core i5-14600K against its promotional packaging

(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Intel Core i5-14600K: Price & availability

  • How much does it cost? US MSRP $319 (about £255/AU$465)
  • 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 i5-14600K is available in the US, UK, and Australia as of October 17, 2023, for an MSRP of $319 (about £255/AU$465). 

This is a slight $10 price drop from its predecessor, which is always good thing, and comes in about $20 (about £15/AU$30) more than the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X, so fairly middle of the pack price-wise.

In terms of actual value, as it goes to market, this chip has the highest performance for its price of any chip in any product tier, but only by a thin margin, and one that is sure to fall very quickly once the price on the 13600K drops by even a modest amount.

Intel Core i5-14600K: Specs

Intel Core i5-14600K: Verdict

  • Best performance for the price of any chip tested...
  • ...but any price drop in the Core i5-13600K will put the 14600K in second place
  • Not really worth upgrading to with the Core i7-14700K costing just $90 more
Image 1 of 7

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

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

Final benchmark results for the Intel Core i5-14600K

(Image credit: Future / Infogram)

Ultimately, the market served by this chip specifically is incredibly narrow, and like the rest of the Raptor Lake Refresh line-up, this is the last hurrah for the Intel LGA 1700 socket.

That means if you go out and buy a motherboard and CPU cooler just for the 14th-gen, it's a one time thing, since another generation on this platform isn't coming. It doesn't make sense to do that, so, if you're upgrading from anything earlier than the 12th-gen, it just makes so much more sense to wait for Meteor Lake to land in several months time and possibly get something really innovative.

If you're on a 12th-gen chip and you can't wait for Meteor Lake next year, the smartest move is to buy the i7-14700K instead, which at least gives you i9-13900K-levels of performance for just $90 more than the i5-14600K.

Ultimately, this chip is best reserved for prebuilt systems like the best all-in-one computers at retailers like Best Buy, where you will use the computer for a reasonable amount of time, and then when it becomes obsolete, you'll go out and buy another computer rather than attempt to upgrade the one you've got.

In that case, buying a prebuilt PC with an Intel Core i5-14600K makes sense, and for that purpose, this will be a great processor. But if you're looking to swap out another Intel LGA 1700 chip for this one, there are much better options out there.

Should you buy the Intel Core i5-14600K?

Buy the Intel Core i5-14600K if...

Don't buy it if...

Also Consider

If my Intel Core i5-14600K review has you considering other options, here are two processors to consider... 

How I tested the Intel Core i5-14600K

  • I spent nearly two weeks testing the Intel Core i5-14600K
  • 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: Gigabyte Aorus X670E Extreme
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 i5-14600K 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 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

Samsung’s T9 portable SSD is its first with USB 3 Gen 2×2, it achieves 2,000MB/s transfer speeds
12:47 pm | October 4, 2023

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

The Samsung Portable SSD T9 is the company’s first with a USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 interface. This allows the external drives to reach 2,000MB/s sequential read and write speeds, twice as fast as the previous T7 drive (that one had a Gen 2x1 interface). To help the drive stay fast, Samsung equipped it with its “Dynamic Thermal Guard”, which helps minimize slow downs due to thermal throttling. This is only for prolonged transfers, which may be rare – the drive is so quick that you can send a 4GB file to it in just two seconds. The Samsung T9 SSD comes in four capacities: 1TB, 2TB and 4TB. They...

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

Next Page »