↩ Accueil

Vue normale

À partir d’avant-hierGamersNexus

Phanteks is Back: Eclipse G400A High Airflow Case Review & Thermal Benchmarks

4 février 2025 à 04:05
Phanteks is Back: Eclipse G400A High Airflow Case Review & Thermal Benchmarksjimmy_thang February 3, 2025

We analyze the Phanteks Eclipse G400A’s specs, build quality, thermals, and more

The Highlights

  • The Phanteks Eclipse G400A uses wide-spacing mesh for the front panel coupled with a finer dust filter behind it
  • The case’s biggest downside is that there's no official front radiator compatibility
  • With 4 included 140mm fans, the G400A is a good case at a good price
  • Original MSRP: $110
  • Release Date: December 10, 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Buy a GN 4-Pack of PC-themed 3D Coasters! These high-quality, durable, flexible coasters ship in a pack of 4, each with a fully custom design made by GN's team. You'll get a motherboard-themed coaster with debug display & reset buttons, a SATA SSD with to-scale connectors, RAM sticks, and a GN logo. These fund our web work! Buy here.

Intro

Today we’re reviewing the Phanteks Eclipse G400A. It’s $110 and includes 4x 140mm fans that are met with a swooping inlet to try and prevent recirculation and funnel the air clean into the case. Phanteks is using wide-spacing mesh for the front panel with a finer dust filter behind it, doubling-up on mesh in a way that can hurt performance; however, there’s a lot of space between the filter and the front panel, which helps avoid issues introduced by pressure drop. 
The front mount only officially supports 140mm fans. It helps that these are included, and while this does limit front mount support for radiators, forcing a specific fan can help performance. We saw Lian Li do this with its new Lian Li Lancool 207. Eliminating support for 120mm fans means reducing the amount of metal and railing obstructing intake of a 140, so this should be the ideal approach for cooling.

Editor's note: This was originally published on January 22, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing

Patrick Lathan

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Camera, Video Editing

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


The case is also elevated a lot, which will help with bottom intake (like for the PSU). That ground clearance is important. The lower side panel is a ventilated strip that’s intended to feed PSU shroud-top fans, although the porosity is relatively low.

Overall, Phanteks is aiming to compete in the airflow and performance market with this case.

Phanteks Eclipse G400A Specs

Model No.PH-EC400GA_DBK01
UPC Code886523303558
Case Dimensions495 x 230 x 522 mm | 19.5 x 9.05 x 20.55 in
Form FactorMid-tower
Mainboard Support*E-ATX | ATX | Micro-ATX | Mini-ITX *Up to 280 mm wide
MaterialsSteel chassis | Tempered glass
Side WindowYes
PCI Slots7
Vertical GPU Support3-slots
Riser Cable sold separately
Internal 2.5″ Bay2
+ 1x 3.5″ HDD
Internal 3.5″ Bay2
+ 0x 2.5″ SSD
Front I/O1x USB 3.0
1x USB-C 3.0 Gen2
Microphone | Headphone Combo
Reset button
Power button + LED
Fans 120 | 140Total Fans: 7x | 6x
Top: 3x | 2x
Front: – | 3x (3x 140 Pre-Installed)
Side: – | –
Rear: 1x | 1x (1x 140 Pre-Installed)
Bottom: 3x | –
Radiators 120 | 140Top: Max. 360 | 280
Front: – | –
Rear: 120 | –
Bottom: – | –
CPU Cooler Height184 mm | 7.24 in
GPU Length415 mm | 16.33 in
GPU Width184 mm | 7.24 in
Power Supply Length270 mm | 10.60 in
Top Radiator Length x Width x Height360 Radiator: 415 x 138 x 60 mm | 16.33 x 5.43 x 2.36 in
280 Radiator: 360 x 147 x 65 mm | 14.17 x 5.78 x 2.55 in
Rear Radiator Length x Width170 x 132 mm | 6.69 x 5.19 in
Net Weight8.63 kg | 19.02 lbs
Gross Weight10.50 kg | 23.14 lbs
Warranty5 Years limited
Scope of Delivery1x Eclipse G400A chassis
4x M25G2-140 fans (Pre-installed)
1x D-RGB mainboard adapter
Accessory Box30x Zip ties
4x Screw cover corner L
4x Screw cover corner R
4x Screw cover bridge
Screws18x Mainboard | SSD screws
4x Power supply screws
8x HDD screws
12x 30 mm fan screws
1x Mainboard stand-off
1x Stand-off removal tool
1x Extra R-side panel screw

Specs copied from manufacturer materials, please read review for our own measurements and opinions

Overview

The Phanteks Eclipse G400A has been a long time coming. Back in early 2016 we were initially unimpressed by the Phanteks Eclipse P400 (watch our review) with the solid panel, but we had a more positive opinion of the airflow-focused P400A (D-RGB) in 2019 (watch our review). With a launch MSRP of $90 and three stock fans behind a simple mesh front panel, the P400A remained a strong competitor in price-to-performance for years after its launch. Over those years, Phanteks has incrementally updated other Eclipse cases from P to G versions, but it's held off on the most important model for so long that some of the updated G cases are now end-of-life. Finally, though, the G400A is here, and we can see whether it's a worthy successor at $110.

Key competition to the G400A includes the Lian Li Lancool 207 that we reviewed recently, which takes on a similar approach to design and can currently be bought for around $80. There’s also the new Corsair FRAME 4000D, which we have in for testing already and are working on. We’ll cover the other competition as we work through this review.

The Build

Getting into the build quality and assembly notes first:

The G400A's front panel diverges from the formula that made its predecessor so successful: the P400A just had a sheet of mesh with no additional filtration, while the G400A uses "brick pattern" mesh (with larger rectangular holes) backed by a filter. 

Phanteks advertises that the mesh is now 45% open surface, versus 32% for what Phanteks calls "standard mesh." We’re not sure exactly what “standard” means. 

Both the mesh and filter are magnetic, and the filter can be removed without altering the appearance of the case; we'll test that later on. The filter has plenty of clearance (>2cm away from the intake fans), but it's one of the saggiest we've ever seen. On the plus side, the lack of reinforcement means that nothing blocks the LED lighting and nothing blocks the intake. 

Phanteks has also revealed a G400N variant with two tempered glass panels and more elaborate cable management, but that version hasn't yet been released.

The front panel includes a plastic frame that's shaped around the 3x 140mm ARGB infinity mirror fans. The choice to only support 140s in the front is in contrast to the P400A, which had more front mounting options, as well as a cheaper non-Digital variant for customers who wanted to use their own fans.

The uniquely-shaped plastic frame might help to keep air from recirculating through the front fans, but the fans are already sealed against the metal chassis. 

According to Phanteks it "directs airflow [and] reduces turbulence." 

The front fans are uniquely joined into a single unit, which could be useful in some contexts. In the G400A, there unfortunately isn't enough room to easily take all three fans out in one piece while a system is inside the case. In situations where that’s not possible, the remaining benefit of the uni-fan approach is that the front fans are daisy-chained together, sharing a single ARGB and fan header. All of the fans have Phanteks "LINK6" connectors and need adapters to connect to standard fan and ARGB headers, which may limit how reusable they are for future builds.

The G400A's focus on shroud ventilation with a two-part glass and mesh side panel is similar to some Antec and Lian Li cases we've covered, but in particular, the Lancool 207. The 207 also has infinity mirror fans and a similar magnetic front panel, but we saw both the 207 and the G400A at Computex, so they were likely in development in isolation and at the same time. 

The G400A has 3x 120mm mounting locations atop the shroud, but at least one of these is of limited usefulness due to the presence of the rear-mounted PSU. The biggest difference with the 207 is that it moves the PSU forward to make way for cooling with clear outside access directly into the GPU. 

The 207 led two categories in our Best PC Cases for 2024 roundup, and it's a tough act to follow with a steady price of $80 on Amazon. The G400A differentiates itself through its larger size and more conventional layout, which gives it an advantage over the 207 in cable management (our biggest complaint with the 207). The suggested routing from Phanteks' manual worked well even with our large sleeved cables, although we opted to route the GPU through the shroud. If you install fans on top of the shroud, that's not an option. The removable section of the top panel and roomy upper area makes working with EPS12V cables for the CPU and other connectors at the top of the motherboard easy. The G400A also supports motherboards with rear-mount connectors; Phanteks specifically mentions BTF and Project Zero boards as compatible.

Surprisingly, the G400A doesn't have better radiator support in any meaningful way than the 207. The shroud cutout at the front of the G400A doesn't leave room for radiators, and although it might technically be possible to force a 280mm rad in, it's not officially supported. Headroom at the top of the case is excellent with more than 7cm of clearance from the top edge of the motherboard to the roof, and the removable top mesh panel makes the top fan mount easy to access for installing radiators up to 360mm. 

The whole top of the case is also technically removable, although doing so requires removing 15 screws. Even though it’s kind of a pain to remove, we like the additional access without losing rigidity of the overall frame. This optional feature can help with maintenance and installation. 

But as far as radiators, we don't generally recommend trying to fit 360mm open-loop radiators in the case (as opposed to a CLC) since the fittings will come close to the stock fans. It’s doable, but will require more effort than typical for custom loops.

There are some minor quality-of-life issues that aren't unusual for cases in this price range:

The top mesh section is a little stiff and difficult to grab, the steel side panel has to be pressed down on all sides to slide into place and could be executed better. The PSU filter unfortunately ejects from the rear of the case, meaning that pulling it away from a wall will be necessary in most situations. The only construction problem was an improperly installed rivet inside the drive cage, but the cage still worked fine. 

Drive support is adequate but bare-bones, limited to either 2x 3.5" drives or 2x 2.5" drives and 1x 3.5" drive. There's no built-in vibration damping, and Phanteks didn't bother cutting extra slots for moving the cage to any alternate locations.

Phanteks Eclipse G400A Thermal Benchmarks

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

As well as running our usual suite of tests on the G400A, we went back and ran the P400A, as well as the G400A without its front filter in order to match the older case. The obvious competitor to watch in these charts is the significantly cheaper Lancool 207, but the NZXT H5 Flow 2024 is a close match to the G400A in both price and layout. Antec's Flux (non-Pro) with five stock fans is similar as well at $120, although we haven't tested that model. Let’s get into the benchmarks.

GPU Full Load Thermals - Noise-Normalized

The first test is for noise-normalized thermals on the GPU.

With the four stock case fans slowed to hit our noise-normalized target of 27 dBA SPL, the G400A made a good start with an average GPU temperature of 45 degrees Celsius above ambient compared to the P400A's average of 49 degrees. That's near the middle of our chart, but many of the cases above it required aftermarket fans (HAVN HS420, O11D EVO side intake) or are from a higher price tier. The most relevant exception is the Lancool 207, which averaged 42 degrees above ambient in this test with its direct GPU cooling. The Lancool 207 was built for this and shows advantages in cooling. The Antec C8 (read our review) also does well here, though is a larger dual-chamber style.

The G400A isn’t exceptional, but is average to above average for GPU cooling.

CPU Full Load Thermals - Noise-Normalized

Moving to CPU thermals in the same noise normalized test, the G400A again outperformed its predecessor at 41 degrees above ambient for the average all-core temperature and 45 on the P-cores versus 46 all-core and 50 P-core on the P400A. It's encouraging to see that one of the better-cooled cases we'd reviewed as of late 2019 has been outperformed by a decent selection of new cases. The G400A effectively tied the 207 here (as well as the more expensive Antec Flux Pro) without a solid lead in either all-core or P-core averages. Both cases are good here.

CPU Full Load Thermals - Full Speed

The G400A is quiet for the level of CPU cooling that it provides at 100% fan speed, with an all-core average of 39 degrees above ambient at 37 dBA while some similarly-performing cases like the Torrent (watch our review) and North XL (read our review) are significantly louder. That includes the 41.6 dBA Lancool 207, which still tops the chart but is less than two degrees ahead of the G400A, yet is noticeably louder.

Removing the front filter had barely any effect on thermal performance, so we recommend leaving it in place unless the sagging causes problems.

GPU Full Load Thermals - Full Speed

Taking a quick glance at the GPU thermals under full load and at max fan speeds, we can see that removing the filter also had minimal effect here. As long as it's kept clean, leaving this filter installed shouldn't hurt.

GPU Full Load Thermals - Standardized Fans

Our standardized fan test uses the same set of three fans in every case, which is useful here for comparing the ventilation of the P400A and G400A while removing stock fans as a variable. The G400A shows definite improvement, with an average GPU temperature of 49 degrees above ambient versus 52 degrees on the original P400A. 

Neither of the Phanteks cases perform well versus the rest of this chart, but you should plan to keep the G400A's stock fans, so its performance without those stock fans isn't particularly relevant.

CPU Full Load Thermals - Standardized Fans

In the same standardized fan test, CPU thermals improved from 41 degrees above ambient all-core in the P400A down to 38 degrees for the G400A. It seems like Phanteks has managed to improve cooling not just through brute force, but also through panel design, while not sacrificing dust filtration.

VRM & RAM Full Load Thermals - Noise-Normalized

Circling back to the original noise normalized results, the G400A had excellent VRM thermals at 28 degrees above ambient, near both the Lancool 207 and Flux Pro (read our review) at 27 degrees. Memory temperatures were similarly good. This may be due to the G400A's high ceiling in combination with the four 140mm fans that provide airflow up to the very top of the case.

Phanteks Eclipse G400A Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

In comparison to the older P400A, the G400A is a solid improvement in thermal performance and it keeps most of the feel and stylings of a Phanteks case. In our original review, we concluded that "given a choice we much prefer a single layer of perforated metal to a decorative mesh panel backed by a foam or fabric filter." That's still generally true, but Phanteks deserves credit for building a case with a filter that doesn't significantly hinder airflow.

The G400A is a good case at a good price, but it's hard for anyone to compete against the Lancool 207. Phanteks' advantage is that the G400A is a bit larger, and therefore it fits slightly larger components. It definitely has more cable space than the 207, for example, with cable management really being our only big complaint with the 207.

Phanteks committed fully to the stock fans that it includes with the G400A, which we agree with for the most part. The biggest downside is that there's no front radiator compatibility, although it might be possible to get a 280mm rad installed.

At $110 with the 4 included 140mm fans, the case is overall competitive. It’s pretty good in terms of ease of installation. The removable top is nice, though it is a bit of a pain to remove it. 

If you like the G400A and just wanted to read a review to look for any problems, we’d say go for it. Just keep in mind any size limitations as it’s a little smaller for an ATX case. But if it’s within your budget and you like it more than the Lian Li Lancool 207, we think the G400A is a well-executed Phanteks case. It’s good to see that the company is back in a good way.


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Founders Edition Review & Benchmarks vs 5090, 7900 XTX, 4080, & More

31 janvier 2025 à 19:39
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Founders Edition Review & Benchmarks vs 5090, 7900 XTX, 4080, & Morejimmy_thang January 31, 2025

We test the RTX 5080’s thermals, frequency, gaming benchmarks, ray tracing, power efficiency, and more

The Highlights

  • The RTX 5080’s performance is within striking distance of AMD’s RX 7900 XTX
  • At the low end, we saw only a 7-10% performance uplift from the 5080 over the 4080
  • The RTX 5090 performs 30% to 68.9% better than the RTX 5080 at 4K in our tests
  • Original MSRP: $1,000
  • Release Date: January 30, 2025

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

We’re going to provide the bottom-line up front: The NVIDIA RTX 5090 (Be mindful of scalped prices) is anywhere from 30% to 68.9% better than the RTX 5080 (Be mindful of scalped prices) at 4K, depending on game, with results commonly in the 45-55% range. Against the AMD RX 7900 XTX of similar price, the 5080 (Be mindful of scalped prices) is within striking distance. They are commonly within 10% of each other. As for the generational gain of the 5080 vs. the 4080, it depends on the game. We saw 16%-20% in some tests, but we also had several results as low as 7-10%, which is about as boring as possible. 

There’s a ton more nuance to get into, but that gives you some expectations in case you got what you needed and want to dip out. One of the more interesting tests we’ll be getting into though will be efficiency, where the RTX 5080 ends up potentially making a case for itself more than the power-hungry 5090 did. Its lower power budget helps there. The thermal testing is also interesting, considering the 5080 FE drops to paste rather than liquid metal and also makes changes to the heatsink itself.

Editor's note: This was originally published on January 29, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing

Patrick Lathan

Testing, Video Editing

Mike Gaglione

Writing

Jeremy Clayton

Camera

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


We’re keeping this review really simple and short (by our standards) today. 

First up, we have to disclose some office gambling behind the scenes. Jimmy has bet Jeremy that if the 5080 can beat the 4090 (Be mindful of scalped prices) at any one benchmark, he’s going to get some free tater tots. 

RTX 5080 Pricing

We’ll quickly cover pricing.

The NVIDIA RTX 5080 has an MSRP of $1,000 and launches on January 30th, along with the $2,000 MSRP RTX 5090. 

The 5070 Ti at $750 and 5070 at $550 will follow in February. Pre-launch pricing on Best Buy indicates that MSRP options will be slim outside of the NVIDIA Founders Edition, so adjust your personal value assessment based on what they actually show up for on launch day. The most expensive one we can see right now is $1,400 – and we’d say don’t buy that one.

The previous generation RTX 4080 launched at $1,200 (watch our review) following the infamous “unlaunch” of the “4080 12GB” – which actually became the 4070 Ti (Be mindful of scalped prices). More recently, the 4080 Super (Be mindful of scalped prices) launched at $1,000, providing a value increase despite its nearly indistinguishable performance from the base 4080.

AMD’s Radeon RX 7900 XTX is the closest price competition for the 5080, which currently starts as low as $830 but is more commonly around $930. Down from that is the 7900 XT, ranging from $650 to $710 and in a decidedly lower price bracket. AMD says its 9070 series cards will be arriving in March.

Intel GPUs haven’t scaled up to this market category yet – that’s a hopeful “yet,” for the record.

Overview

And now for a quick overview of the basic specs. For the full details, check out our announcement coverage of these cards.

The Blackwell architecture-based RTX 5080 has 10752 CUDA cores and 16GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus. These specs are way down from the 5090’s configuration – almost exactly half – making for probably the biggest gap there’s ever been between the top 2 tiers on launch day.

The RTX 5080 is also a PCIe Gen5 card, but as our recent PCIe scaling benchmark with the 5090 showed, it barely makes a difference at all in games to run on Gen4 – or even Gen3.

This review will again focus on high-end GPUs, and you can see our test methodology here. As a reminder, our site is free of third-party ads and contains our game settings and test bench. To see the low-end, check out our Intel Arc B570 review.

RTX 5080 Thermals

Here’s the thermal chart.

Under a full workload for the GPU, the RTX 5080’s temperature with auto settings landed at 65-66 degrees Celsius for the GPU. Considering the change to thermal paste from liquid metal, the real impact here to reduce the temperature is in the power consumption reduction. We’ll look at RPM as well, though.

The memory temperature plotted at about 72-75 degrees Celsius for the 5080, which is well within the TjMax restrictions of the memory on the card, which should be about 105 degrees for that.

As for 5080 fan speed, it held about 1,470-1,500 RPM. That makes its acoustic profile similar to what we saw in the 5090 review, so you can check that for noise samples and a frequency spectrum. It’s a little quieter overall.

The 5090’s GPU temperature in this test was 72 degrees Celsius, with the 5090’s memory at 90 -- we weren’t happy about that, despite being within spec. Once in a hotbox case, that 90 degree result becomes a concern. Finally, the 5090’s fan ran about 100 RPM higher when left to its own devices, resulting in a 5080 FE, which despite moving away from liquid metal is not really at a disadvantage. It’s doing okay overall, especially because of the fact that the power consumption is down. 

RTX 5080 Frequency

Frequency validation is up now. This is just to ensure the card is hitting at least the spec set by NVIDIA.

The RTX 5080 clocks in this benchmark held relatively flat, although not perfectly flat, at around 2670 MHz. NVIDIA’s website claims 2.62 GHz boost clock, so it is technically exceeding the minimum spec.

The RTX 4080 ran at about 2775 MHz in this benchmark, consistent with what we saw between the 5090 and 4090 (watch our review). The frequency is higher on the 4080, but the architecture has changed and made this an indirect comparison.

The RTX 5090 bounces around between 2475 to 2670 MHz or so, mostly landing below the 5080. It’s relatively common for the fuller configurations to run lower clocks, but higher core counts.

RTX 5080 Gaming Benchmarks

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Time to get into game testing. We’ll keep these short this time since the comparison is relatively simple.

FFXIV 4K

Final Fantasy 14 is up first and at 4K.

The RTX 5080 landed at 112 FPS AVG, behind the RTX 4090’s 139 FPS AVG result and the 5090’s 182 FPS AVG result. That makes the 5090 faster than the 5080 by a massive 62%. 

AMD’s 7900 XTX directly competes with the 5080, but does allow the 5080 a lead of just under 10 FPS in this benchmark. Lows are about the same between them.

Against the 4080 and 4080 Super, the 5080 is about 15% better.

Generationally by name, the 3080 (watch our review) held a 71 FPS AVG in this benchmark, yielding a 58% uplift to the 5080. The 2080 Ti’s (watch our review) 54 FPS AVG gets basically doubled by the 5080.

As a note, some of these charts have the 1070 (watch our review), 1060 (watch our revisit), 2060 (watch our review), and other older cards on them. The 1080 Ti (watch our revisit) hasn’t been rerun yet this year.

FFXIV 1440p

At 1440p, the RTX 5080 held 217 FPS AVG against the 5090’s 317 FPS AVG. We’re not fully CPU-bound here, so the 5090 still has relatively high scaling at 46% ahead of the 5080. For the same comparison, the 4090 led the 4080 original by 36% and the Super by basically the same because they’re basically the same card.

The 7900 XTX (watch our review) remains neck-and-neck with the RTX 5080, with the two functionally identical from a player experience standpoint. The 5080 is technically ahead. The 7900 XTX is the strongest competition to the 5080 in this rasterized test when looking at pricing.

The 4080 and 4080 Super improve from about 200 FPS AVG to 217, or a relatively boring 8-9%.

Down the stack, we have the 7900 XT at 171 FPS AVG, the 4070 Ti at 151 FPS AVG, and the 6950 XT at 150 FPS AVG. The generational comparison to the 3080’s 129 FPS AVG gives the 5080 a 68% improvement, a bit better than observed at 4K.

FFXIV 1080p

Finally for Final Fantasy, 1080p has the 5090 at that same impressive 407 FPS number we mentioned last week, with the 5080 at 302 FPS AVG. Despite the heavier CPU load, the advantage remains 35% for the 5090 over the 5080; still, that’s nothing compared to what we saw at 4K.

The 4090 leads the 5080 by 24%, at 376 FPS AVG to 302. The 7900 XTX is closer than ever to the 5080 and is tied in all practical senses. It’s looking good here, especially with the price, but this ignores ray tracing testing that tends to still favor NVIDIA.

Black Myth: Wukong - 4K

Black Myth: Wukong is up next, tested first at 4K and rasterized. This is a heavy workload for these cards, with the RTX 5090 at 86 FPS AVG and holding strong frametime pacing as indicated by the 1% and 0.1% lows. The RTX 4090 is next (at 67 FPS), followed by the RTX 5080 at 58 FPS AVG. This has the 4090 as 16% better than the 5080 and the 5090 as 48% better than the 5080.

The RTX 4080 Super (read our review) and 4080 are functionally identical and give the 5080 an underwhelming 6 FPS lead, which is about 12%. The 5080 also leads the 7900 XTX by 17%, with AMD’s card falling disproportionally behind in this test with its 49 FPS result. Lows on the 7900 XTX are commendable though and show impressive consistency.

Strong prior-gen cards include the 3090 Ti (watch our review) at 45 FPS AVG and 3080 at 36.6 FPS AVG, with the 3080 yielding an uplift of 57% to the RTX 5080 and similar for the 6950 XT (read our review).

Black Myth: Wukong - 1440p

At 1440p, the RTX 5090 leads the chart at 130 FPS AVG, making it 23% better than the 4090 and 34% better than the RTX 5080. 

The 5080 and 4080 are disappointingly close at only a 9% improvement for the 5080. The lead over the 7900 XTX also reduces down to 13% here, with lower resolution drawing them closer.

Noteworthy other cards include the 3090 Ti at 74 FPS AVG, the 7900 XT (read our revisit) at 71 FPS AVG (which isn’t bad considering its price at various points in history), the 3080 at 62 FPS AVG, and the 2080 Ti at 45 FPS AVG.

Black Myth: Wukong - 1080p

Scaling continued at 1080p, where the 5090 boosts to 160 FPS average from the 130 FPS result at 1440p. The RTX 5080 still trails the 4090, but they get close and the 4090’s advantage is reduced to 6%. 

Generationally, the 5080 leads the 4080 by 7%, down from its lead of 9% at 1440p and 12% at 4K. The 7900 XTX still trails by about 10 FPS here. It’s a shame that AMD decided not to compete at the high-end this generation, as a generational step over the current XTX may have been a serious contender to the 5080. There’s still time though.

Starfield - 4K

Starfield is up at 4K. First, we have to address this absolute roast of a comment from our 5090 review. “I would like to correct one mistake GN made in this review, where they stated that there aren’t many reasons to play Starfield at 1080p but in actuality there aren’t many reasons to play this game at all.”

Ouch. Well, anyway, at 4K, the RTX 5090 held 108 FPS AVG and led the 5080 by 41%. Not the best we’ve seen, but still a large gap. For reference, the 4090’s 92 FPS AVG led the 4080’s 71 FPS by 30%. Comparatively, that makes the gap between the last generation 90 and 80-class cards smaller than the current generation.

Against the 4080, the 5080 is about 5 FPS improved. That’s not very exciting. NVIDIA’s angle will probably be pricing.

The 7900 XTX actually defeats the 5080 on a technicality in this one as well, with frametime pacing equivalent between them and the average FPS functionally identical. There is no perceptible difference between these, which is a benefit to the 7900 XTX in this rasterized scenario.

Starfield - 1440p

At 1440p, the 5090 climbs to 147 FPS AVG and leads the 5080’s 110 FPS result by 34%. That reduces the lead versus 4K. The 7900 XTX also climbs with a very slight but irrelevant victory over the 5080, with the lows identical when rounded. 

Against the nearly perfectly matched 4080 and 4080 Super, the 5080 holds an unimpressive 2.5% lead. That’s not very exciting.

Older cards worth highlighting include the 3080 FTW3 (RIP EVGA) at 72 FPS and 2080 Ti at 50 FPS AVG. AMD’s 7900 XT is also noteworthy for its performance when considering some of its historical pricing.

Starfield - 1080p

At 1080p, the RTX 5080’s 132 FPS AVG gives the 4090 a lead of 17% and the 5090 a lead of 24%. The 5080 matches the 4080 equally here, with the 4080 Super within error -- just like its entire pointless existence, sort of like Starfield at 1080p.

The XTX also nearly equals the 5080, although NVIDIA has an advantage on a technicality.

Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 4K

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is up now, first at 4K rasterized.

The RTX 5090 ran at 133 FPS AVG and held well-paced lows behind it. Its lead over the 4090’s 98 FPS is 35% here, with the lead over the 5080 at 57%. This is one of the largest gaps thus far. For comparison, the 4090 led the 4080 non-Super by 36%, meaning that the 4090 and 4080 were closer together than the 5090 and 5080 are to each other.

The 7900 XTX’s 77 FPS AVG has it outperforming the 4080 cards and behind the 5080 card, which leads by 10%.

The 3080 did OK in this test at 50 FPS AVG, with a 71% improvement to the 5080.

Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1440p

1440p has the RTX 5080 at 134 FPS AVG, achieving 71% of the performance of the RTX 5090 at about 50% of the price. The RTX 4090 leads the 5080 again, this time by around 20 FPS.

As for AMD, the 7900 XTX lands at 126 FPS AVG for a 10 FPS gap between the two cards. The 4080 lands at 122 FPS AVG, keeping the 5080 at 10% ahead.

Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1080p

1080p has the cards crushed together, although there’s still a gap of 49 FPS between the 5090 and 5080. That’s 30%, which is a lot for 1080p, but this isn’t necessarily a scenario to plan for.

The RTX 4080 is right next to the 5080. Although the gap is 10 FPS average, the reality is that very few people would notice 165 FPS vs. 156 FPS, particularly in this game.

Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty

This is where we would test Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty -- if it worked. We’ve had repeated issues with getting the 50-series cards to run Cyberpunk without some sort of game-level issue occurring where it just won’t launch or crashes. We had this with the 5090, but reinstalled the game and that fixed it. We can’t state for certain that it is a fault of the 50-series cards and not some other game update, especially as Cyberpunk has had so many problems over the years, but what we can say is that it continuously kept breaking. We removed it from this review until the game is more stable. Again, we’re not sure if it’s unique to these cards or not, but we know that Jay had similar issues in his testing.

Dying Light 2 - 4K

Dying Light 2 at 4K is next. The 5080 ran at 81 FPS AVG, giving the 4090 a 13% lead and the 5090 a 56% lead. That’s a large improvement for the 5090 over the 5080. The 4090 improved over the 4080 by less, at 36% here.

The 5080 leads the 7900 XTX by 12% here, with the 7900 XTX’s 73 FPS AVG result landing between the 5080 and 4080. Speaking of, the 5080 leads the 4080 cards by about 21%.

We’re seeing large gains from the 3080 to the 5080, as expected, with the 2080 Ti below even the 3080.

Dying Light 2 - 1440p

At 1440p, the RTX 5080’s 149 FPS AVG puts it close to the 7900 XTX’s 141, with lows between them also comparable. The 5080 is advantaged, but that gap was larger at 4K. The 5090 also has its lead cut down to 45%; although still significant, the doubled price with the 5090 jeopardizes its value for anyone not using it in VRAM-intensive work scenarios.

The 4080 cards were again almost identical, re-proving why we didn’t waste our time in that review. The 5080 leads them by 12%.

Dying Light 2 - 1080p

At 1080p, the 5090 led the 5080 by 44%, which is really more impressive for the 9800X3D (read our review) than anything else. That is a gigantic gap when considering how any prior CPU we’ve used for these benches would be bottlenecking the top 2-3 cards. The 4090 also maintains a lead of 19% over the 5080. 

Resident Evil 4 - 4K

In Resident Evil 4 at 4K, the RTX 5080 fell behind the 7900 XTX by 4 FPS. Lows are about the same, but advantaged on the 7900 XTX. The 5090’s lead over the 5080 is massive in this one, at 68.9% with these settings. That’s a huge gulf. Looking back, the 4090 led the 4080 by 47%. There are two main ways to look at this: One, the 5090 is just that good; two, the 5080 is just that unimpressive.

To figure out which it is, we can compare the 5080 to the 4080. The improvement here is 19%. NVIDIA’s best argument for itself will be the price as compared to the original 4080. The 7900 XTX wins that argument in this particular game, though.

Resident Evil 4 - 1440p

At 1440p, the advantage in the 5090 over the 5080 is reduced to 56%, though that’s still a lot. The 4090 is still more than 50 frames per second faster than the 5080, with the 7900 XTX now 4% ahead. That’s not a huge gap, but considering the generational difference and price of the XTX, we remain disappointed that AMD has signaled it likely won’t launch a replacement this generation. Maybe they’ll reconsider.

The 5080’s lead over the 4080 drops to just 11% here.

RTX 5080 Ray Tracing Benchmarks

Grab a GN Soldering & Project Mat for a high-quality work surface with extreme heat resistance. These purchases directly fund our operation, including our build-out of the hemi-anechoic chamber for our acoustic testing! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

We’re on to ray tracing testing now.

Ray Tracing: Black Myth Wukong 4K

Black Myth: Wukong is up first, with a caveat that this game is unbelievably NVIDIA favored. We have other RT tests that are more balanced, but this is one of the heaviest workloads and also happens to benefit NVIDIA. Cyberpunk would also fit that bill, but we removed it for the stability issues we mentioned.

At 4K with FSR as defined in the chart title, the 5090 held 88 FPS AVG, the 4090 ran at 65 FPS AVG, and the 5080 ran at 59 FPS AVG. That sets a 15% lead over the 4080 FE’s 51 FPS AVG. 

Some notables: The 3080 just can’t really handle these settings and is down at 28 FPS AVG. Jumping to the 4080 from the 3080 would be an 83% improvement, with the 5080 giving an uplift of 112% total from the 3080.

Sadly, the 7900 XTX is worse than the 3080 in this benchmark.

As for the 5090, it ran 51% higher framerate than the 5080 with these conditions. Sadly for Jimmy, the 5080 did not defeat the 4090 here -- but there’s hope.

Ray Tracing: Black Myth Wukong 1080p

At 1080p but still with the same FSR settings, the 5080 operated at 122 FPS AVG and -- what’s that? -- the 5080 outperforms the 4090 in this one by 1.5 FPS AVG. No one said the win had to be meaningful and a win is a win -- and as soon as I reported the results, I heard they were considering a rematch with the 5070.

The 5080 roughly matches the 4090 in this result, with the 5090 leading the 5080 by 30%. The 1080p restriction with FSR is what’s making this less exciting than typically.

Ray Tracing: Dragon’s Dogma 2 4K

Dragon’s Dogma 2 with RT is up next. This one is more balanced.

The RTX 5090 at 4K ran at 113 FPS AVG with maximum RT, which puts it 33% over the 4090 and 57% over the 5080. The 7900 XTX is much more competitive in this one than Black Myth, running at 66 FPS AVG and landing between the 4080 Super and 5080.

The generational uplift is 16% from the 4080 FE to the 5080 FE. 

Ray Tracing: Dragon’s Dogma 2 1440p

At 1440p and still with RT, the 5080 held about a 7% lead over the 7900 XTX. That’s not bad for AMD’s last gen card in this game. As for the 4080 FE, the 5080 is about 10% ahead. Not very exciting for NVIDIA overall with the 5080 in this one. Let’s move on.

Ray Tracing: Dragon’s Dogma 2 1080p

At 1080p, the 5080’s 146 FPS AVG had it only about 9 FPS over the 4080. The 5090 still keeps a 33% lead over the 5080, despite slimming down versus the 4K result’s 57% gap.

This isn’t that interesting, so let’s skip ahead.

Ray Tracing: Dying Light 2 4K

With ray tracing for Dying Light 2 and tested at 4K and upscaling, the RTX 5080 ran at 67 FPS AVG and trailed the 4090 by over 10 FPS, with the 5090 leading the 5080 by 63%. 

Over the 4080, the 5080 leads by about 17%. The 7900 XTX is between the 3090 Ti and 4070 Ti (watch our review), trailing the 4080, and obviously therefore trailing the 5080.

Ray Tracing: Dying Light 2 1440p

At 1440p with RT and upscaling, the 5080’s 117 FPS AVG lands it 12% ahead of the 4080. The gap is shrinking here. The 7900 XTX trails somewhat significantly here and gives the 5080 an advantage of 35%.

Ray Tracing: Dying Light 2 1080p

At 1080p, the 5090 proves that there’s still headroom in the CPU (impressively) with its 224 FPS AVG, leading the 5080 by 41%, but the 4080 and 5080 get squished together with only a 9% advantage to the 5080 between them.

The 7900 XTX is closer to the 3090 Ti here, keeping the 5080 about 30% ahead.

Ray Tracing: Resident Evil 4 4K

Finally for RT, Resident Evil 4 at 4K with upscaling is up. The RTX 5090 ran at 210 FPS AVG with these settings, or a 54% improvement over the 5080’s 136. The 7900 XTX is much more competitive here, with the title generally being a lightweight RT implementation. We keep it around for that reason: If we have a heavy one like Black Myth, it helps to balance representation with a light one. The 7900 XTX looks much better here than in other RT tests.

The 4080’s 117-119 FPS AVG makes the scaling in the 5080 overall boring, unfortunately, with the improvement being hardly noticeable.

Ray Tracing: Resident Evil 4 1440p

Here’s 1440p. The 5080 jumps to 205 FPS AVG, the 5090 to 290 FPS AVG, and the 7900 XTX to 195. The XTX is still competitive here, especially given the price and generational differences; likewise, the 4080 still makes the 5080 relatively uninteresting. This feels like a sidegrade.

RTX 5080 Efficiency

Power efficiency testing is next, measured using power interposers and capturing only GPU power. We are not measuring total system power for this and instead isolate for the GPU. The PCIe slot is intercepted and measured as well.

Power Consumption: Idle

Idle power consumption is far better on the RTX 5080 than the RTX 5090. Keep in mind that idle power testing is very situational to the monitor, refresh rate, and power plans -- but our test setup is identical unit-to-unit, so that’s all that matters here. They are all under the same conditions.

Under these conditions, the RTX 5080 was at 12.75W when idle on the desktop. This is close (but improved upon) the RTX 4080’s 15-16W idle power draw, both of which are far below the 4090’s 29W and 5090’s 46W power consumption. 

Efficiency: FFXIV 4K

Final Fantasy 14 at 4K had the RTX 5080 at the top of the chart for efficiency. Comparatively, this is a great result. Its 298W draw here leaves headroom in the TDP budget, with the relatively high framerate enabling it to outperform the 269W 4080 Super for efficiency and performance alike. It also outdoes the 5090, which scored 0.34 FPS/W. The 5080 significantly outdoes the RX 7900 XTX, which ran at 0.24 FPS/W and 430W.

This appears to be a possible strong point for the RTX 5080.

Efficiency: FFXIV 1440p

1440p gives us a lot more cards on the chart since we’ve tested more mid-range devices, but with the downside that the high-end devices scale their best at 4K. That means we lose some of the framerate scaling advantage.

The 5080 is still tied for the most efficient on this chart after rounding, aligning with the 4080 Super as the most efficient GPU we’ve tested yet. It’s at 0.75 FPS/W while pulling 290W, up from the 268W of the 4080 Super but also up in framerate. The 4090 pulled 386W here, with the 5090 at 520W.

Efficiency: F1 24 4K

For efficiency in F1 24 at 4K and with RT, the RTX 5080 ties the 4090 and is within reasonable variance of the 4090 and 4080 Super results. The 5080 pulled 330W in this test, putting it notably lower in power consumption than the RTX 5090’s 569W draw here, but still more than the 4080 Super’s 291W. The 7900 XTX is significantly less efficient in this particular workload, hampered in part by RT but also just by its 422W draw.

RTX 5080 Conclusion 

Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!

Check back soon for our ITX testing with the FE cards and for transient power testing coming up. We’ll look at power excursions in that. We also have a story about MFG, or multi-frame generation, almost entirely complete and coming up. That’ll delve into NVIDIA’s new DLSS and frame generation tech in detail.

Otherwise, that’s all the numbers for now. The quick recap is:

  • Thermals on the 5080 FE cooler are good overall and the acoustic profile is similar to the 5090 FE cooler. Check our 5090 FE review for that
  • The efficiency is toward the top of the charts and the card seems to be more within the optimal power range than the 5090 (Be mindful of scalped prices)
  • For gaming performance, this is one of the largest gaps we’ve ever seen between the top 2 cards
  • The 5090 leads the 5080 (Be mindful of scalped prices) anywhere from 30% to nearly 70% in 4K benchmark results
  • The 5080 is a relatively boring uplift over the 4080, unfortunately. This must be why NVIDIA has pushed MFG so hard
  • The 7900 XTX is a strong competitor in rasterization, but is assailable in ray tracing
  • Finally, the low VRAM capacity continues to be an unfortunate way to segment the 90-class cards into the professional user camp. The 5080 being a 16GB device destroys its usefulness to people who do work like our Premiere and Blender rendering -- but that’s probably the plan to drive 5090 sales
  • Unfortunately, the 4090 cards have largely evaporated or there might be a strong argument for them still with the VRAM boost

With several partner models listed at $1,200 to $1,400 in pre-launch listings, the value isn’t compelling. We also continue to take issue with NVIDIA’s hugely misleading “benchmarks” on its website:

The 5080 is shown as being 2x the speed of the 4080 in several tests, but again, this has to do with its MFG 4X Mode that’s only available on the 50-series. We’re testing that. The boring range of 10% to maybe 20% in some situations is more common. We ranted about this in the 5090 review if you want more.

This is why NVIDIA is pushing MFG so hard: The 5080 otherwise is a boring product generationally. When the gap is sometimes 10 FPS over the 4080 Super at the same price, it’s just hard to get excited about. It seems like a tool to create 5090 sales.

As for the bets of tater tots within the office, it looks like Jimmy wins this one. They’ll have a rematch for the 5070 and 4090.


Intel Arc B570 'Battlemage' GPU Review & Benchmarks, Low-End CPU Tests, & Efficiency

27 janvier 2025 à 22:27
Intel Arc B570 'Battlemage' GPU Review & Benchmarks, Low-End CPU Tests, & Efficiencyjimmy_thang January 27, 2025

We put Intel’s latest Battlemage GPU through a series of benchmarks and look at it coupled with older/lower-end CPUs

The Highlights

  • The B570 is the second Battlemage GPU from Intel
  • The B570 loses some steam at lower resolutions like 1080p
  • The B570 is another example of how Intel has definitely improved over its first generation GPUs
  • Original MSRP: $220
  • Release Date: January 16, 2025

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Buy a GN 4-Pack of PC-themed 3D Coasters! These high-quality, durable, flexible coasters ship in a pack of 4, each with a fully custom design made by GN's team. You'll get a motherboard-themed coaster with debug display & reset buttons, a SATA SSD with to-scale connectors, RAM sticks, and a GN logo. These fund our web work! Buy here.

Intro

Today, we’re reviewing the Intel Arc B570 Battlemage GPU. The B570 has an MSRP of $220 and follows-up the $250 B580 that we reviewed previously. Intel’s B570 price point lands it in territory where AMD’s RX 6600 (watch our review) and 6600 XT used to fight. Today, that price class is mostly vacant of modern architecture solutions. The RX 7600 (watch our review) is the closest, typically around $250, and sometimes on sale. NVIDIA’s RTX 4060 (watch our review) remains around $300 typically.
Battlemage had an overall good launch. Lately, it’s been getting coverage for a potential for driver overhead in some test configurations that cause disproportionately bad performance on older CPUs. In addition to our 9800X3D test platform, we also ran several cards back through on a 5600X (watch our review) with locked clocks and an i5-12400 (watch our review). The short answer to the question of whether it changes performance is “no.” The long answer is that we have extra charts to show why not. There are scenarios where it can matter, but other than a couple instances, they do not really emerge in our test suite.

Editor's note: This was originally published on January 16, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing

Patrick Lathan
Mike Gaglione

Power Data Aggregation

Jeremy Clayton

Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Camera

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


Anyway, let’s get into the B570 review.

Intel Arc B570 Overview

Check out our B580 review if you want more detail on frametime pacing and on the basics of the architecture. For a quick recap of the specs:

The B580 GPU is a 20 Xe-core configuration on 5 render slices, a 190W TBP, and 12GB of GDDR6. Memory bandwidth is relatively high for a card of this class, at 456 GB/s. The B570 card drops 2 of the Xe cores to land at 18 and is still set up on 5 render slices. RT units get cut down as well, TBP is at 150W, and memory is set up at 10GB of GDDR6 with a 380GB/s bandwidth. The memory interface is a smaller 160 bits.

Here’s a quick pricing recap:

At the time of writing this ahead of launch, we checked Newegg and Amazon for several GPUs.

The Intel B580 GPU is mostly out of stock at the actual MSRP and being scalped at the time we’re writing this. On Newegg, it’s $340 and up right now, which is far too much to pay. It’s likely that when this story is published, the retailers will restock with B580s that are closer to normal, but we can’t review the future.

The RTX 4060 is currently around $295 to $320, with units regularly available at $300.

The AMD RX 7600 is $250 as of writing this, making it the closest price competition on a relatively modern architecture.

Enough of that. We have a lot of charts to get through today, so let’s start with the alternative CPU testing.

We are going to present charts that have 3 CPUs per card on them. The way to use these is not to compare the GPUs to each other, but rather to compare the same GPU against itself across 3 CPUs. This is to test whether Arc is disproportionately impacted by lower-end CPUs, meaning to test whether relative percent scaling against its competition worsens on a more likely pairing of a lower-end CPU.

We locked the 5600X to its single-core frequency except across all cores for one set of tests, then we used a 12400 for the other set. 

The current topic, at least as we’ve seen it mostly discussed in comments, is that Intel may be disproportionately hurt by driver overhead. Our testing is done with the intent to create a GPU bottleneck, as this isn’t a CPU review, and our content is done with maximum controls with the intent that you’d check both the CPU and GPU review. In this instance, we are still enacting controls, but potentially using a lower-end CPU. We kept our game settings the same, though, which means that even 1080p will often be GPU bottlenecked.

Intel Arc B570 Bounded Benchmarks

FFXIV - 1080p

This chart is for Final Fantasy 14 at 1080p.

We’ll look at all of the B580 rows first:

  • With a 9800X3D, the B580 ran at 124 FPS AVG
  • With a 5600X and a fixed all-core frequency, it was at 122 FPS AVG
  • With the 12400, it was at 120 FPS AVG

There is no substantial change to the B580’s performance across these three CPUs with this test configuration.

Moving to the RTX 4060: The 4060 on the 9800X3D bench, 5600X bench, and 12400 bench performed identically. It was about 112-114 FPS AVG on all of them. There is no substantial change to performance.

The RX 7600 saw a performance drop on the i5-12400, but on the other two systems, was about the same.

With the B570, we observed approximately equivalent performance from the 12400, 5600X, and the 9800X3D (read our review). As such, the percent difference between all of these devices is overall comparable in this test, despite which CPU is used.

Across all tested devices, we did observe a reduction in 0.1% low performance as the CPU was reduced to lower performance levels. As an example, the RX 7600 with the 9800X3D, at 84 FPS 0.1%, versus with the 5600X at 62.1. This is expected.

FFXIV - 1440p

Here’s the test at 1440p. In this benchmark, we did not observe a meaningful difference in B580 performance across the 3 CPUs. The same is true for the RTX 4060 and the RX 7600. We are not able to detect any differences beyond slight variance across platforms. The B570 also does not scale differently and scores almost identically across the three platforms. The data consistency for average FPS is actually remarkable. This means that the unbound data later will be sufficient for establishing differences between averages.

As for lows, we are seeing consistently reduced lows on the lower-end CPUs in this game. The 5600X and 12400 both had worse 0.1% lows than the 9800X3D with the B570. With the RTX 4060, we’re seeing stable 0.1% lows across all 3 devices. With the RX 7700 XT (watch our review), we saw differing lows between the 9800X3D and 12400. With the RX 7600, we saw stable lows across all 3.

It would appear that, based on the B580, B570, and A770 (read our revisit) data, there may be an argument to worse lows on lower-end CPUs for Arc. We’ll need more games.

FFXIV - 4K

At 4K, everything is remarkably consistent. This mostly includes lows as well, although exceptions like the 9800X3D and 5600X for the A770 apply.

Broadly speaking, the GPUs are about the same here across all configurations here.

Cyberpunk - 1080p

This is Cyberpunk at 1080p/Ultra. We’ll go through it fast: The results do not change CPU-to-CPU. The only differences are on the RTX 4060, where we see worse lows on the lower-end CPUs, the A770, where we see a very slightly lower average, and the 7700 XT, where we see a change in 0.1% lows. The B580 and B570 do not exhibit a change. In fact, realistically, the CPU change does not affect any of these results with regard to how we do a standard review. They are the same. This is GPU-bound, so that’s what you’d expect. Some of the internet has lost the plot and think “Arc bad at 1080p,” but it’s not that simple. It depends on the GPU load and the game.

Starfield - 1080p

Starfield is known to be problematic for Arc. We have that discussion in the standalone chart, but we’ll focus only on scaling within a given card here. We did not observe a difference in the relative ranking of the B580 or B570 versus their competition in this test. Relative percent scaling did not get worse with lower-end CPUs.

At 1080p, there is a slight difference at the top-end with the 7700 XT and the 12400 as a potential CPU bind comes into play.

The RTX 4060 is identical in AVG FPS performance across all 3 CPUs; however, we observed worse frametime pacing on the 5600X and 12400 for the RTX 4060. Ultimately, they are the same level of reduction from the 9800X3D, so the two lower-end CPUs are comparable to each other.

The RX 7600 is identical in AVG FPS performance and within variance on all 3. Again, the 9800X3D has a slight advantage in frametime pacing.

The B580 is identical on all 3 for AVG FPS. There is also no meaningful difference in frametime pacing or 0.1% low performance. Note though that the B580 has some troublesome lows in this title already, but they don’t get worse on lower-end CPUs.

The B570 is the same and the results are within variance for all 3 metrics.

Resident Evil 4 - 1080p

This is Resident Evil 4 at 1080p.

The 7700 XT exhibits a slight ceiling with the 12400, but is mostly comparable. The B580 ran at 128 FPS AVG with the 9800X3D and 122 with the 5600X. We didn’t run this test on the 12400 configuration. The B570 had all 3, though: The 9800X3D has it at 110 FPS AVG, or 5% ahead of the 5600X configuration and 5.7% ahead of the 12400 configuration.

The RTX 4060 ran at 107.9 FPS AVG on the 9800X3D and 106.5 FPS AVG on the 12400. The RTX 4060 shows a top-to-bottom range of 1.3%, smaller than the observed difference on the B570. This slightly reconstructs the stack such that the B570 ends up tied or slightly under the RTX 4060 rather than ahead of it by 2.1%; however, the reduction puts the RTX 4060 on like-for-like hardware maximally 2% ahead. Between the two, they’re realistically about the same.

As for 0.1% low performance, the Arc cards underperform compared to the RTX 4060 on all CPUs. This does not get disproportionately worse on the 5600X or 12400 and instead scales with the average. The disadvantage in lows exists on the 9800X3D standard CPU and on the lower-end ones.

Baldur’s Gate - 1440p

Next up is Baldur’s Gate 3. We only run this test at 1440p and 4K due to the low load. 

In this test, the RX 7700 XT found a hard bottleneck with the i5-12400. This capped out at 79 FPS AVG, as opposed to the unbound test at 133 FPS AVG. This would be appropriate for a CPU review, but does not show GPU performance. The RTX 4060 on the 12400 further reinforces these limits (although bounces off of them way harder, with much worse 0.1% lows as a result of the CPU, not the GPU). The RTX 4060 exhibits identical AVG FPS with all 3 configurations. The lows are better on the 9800X3D as it allows the GPU to hit frame pacing without external binds, which is expected behavior.

The RX 7600 is restricted by the CPUs with the 5600X and i5-12400, with both lower than the 9800X3D’s result. Again, this is normal and is the expected result from a CPU bind. Lows are hurt as a result of limiting the ceiling.

The B580 also experienced a performance reduction with the 12400, but a much larger one with the R5 5600X. To do some quick math:

The RX 7600 at 77.1 FPS AVG with the 12400 gains 11.1% by moving to the 9800X3D.

The B580 with the 12400 at 63.7 FPS AVG gains 16.2% by moving to the 9800X3D. That’s not as a big of a difference as we might expect, but it is larger than we saw on the 7600.

The 5600X is a far different story, with a maximum uplift of 32% from the 5600X unit to the 9800X3D at 74 FPS AVG. This may be the driver overhead.

The B570 shows similar behavior, with scaling worse on the 5600X than on the 12400. Lows are not disproportionately worse on any of them; in other words, the lows follow the behavior relative to other devices also scaling with the CPU.

This would possibly change our recommendation for a 5600X user, but not a 12400 user where there is only a 3 FPS difference.

Baldur’s Gate 3 - 4K

At 4K, the 7700 XT is the same on both CPUs for AVG FPS, but worse in frametime pacing on the 12400. This is expected behavior when using a worse CPU.

The A770 has identical performance between the 9800X3D and 5600X.

The RTX 4060 has identical performance between all 3. There is a 1.3 FPS AVG difference as a result of not only run-to-run variance between the 3, but also the frametime pacing is also much better on the 9800X3D for the RTX 4060, which will influence the AVG FPS results.

The RX 7600 has the same AVG FPS on all 3 CPUs, with better frametime pacing on the 9800X3D.

The B580 has identical performance on all 3 CPUs for AVG FPS, with a slight 1% low advantage on the 9800X3D. 

The B570 is identical on all 3 CPUs, with better lows on the 9800X3D.

All of this behavior is expected for a GPU bind. 

Black Myth - 1080p

Black Myth will be brief as well: At 1080p/High, which is our standardized test platform, there is no meaningful, broad difference in scaling.

The numbers do not change in any meaningful way. The 7700 XT is the same on both, the 4060 is the same on all 3, the 7600 is the same on all 3 (with the exception of reduced lows on the 12400), the B580 is the same on all 3 and lows are within variance run-to-run. The B570 is the same on all 3, with lows within the wider variance at the low-end. The A770 is the same on both.

Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1080p

We’ll look at one more. 

In Dragon’s Dogma 2, they are all the same from CPU-to-CPU, with a few notes.

The 7700 XT is roughly identical. The RTX 4060 is mostly identical, with the 12400 potentially showing marginally worse performance. The RX 7600 is the same across all 3, with slightly worse 0.1% lows. 

The B580 is the same across all 3, with worse 0.1% lows on the 5600X specifically. The B570 is the same across all 3 in all 3 metrics.

The A770 is the same in all 3 metrics.

Discussion

Let’s quickly talk results: First, in most scenarios, there is no meaningful impact. The biggest situation was with the 5600X in Baldur’s Gate 3. The 12400 did not react as violently. The secondary impact is in some 0.1% low differences, but these often also manifested on other devices.

This does not affect how we review GPUs. We have to make that clear here. There is no data to support that our conclusions would be different if we ran lower-end CPUs with these cards. It would just cap the ceiling of how much change you can see. 

That’s not to say there isn’t driver overhead or that there can’t be. We are aware that multiple outlets have now shown this. However, we tested with High and Ultra settings and simply were not able to replicate the impact. Our belief is that in scenarios of extremely high framerate, such as 200+, or in situations where the CPU is heavily bound from low settings and lower resolutions, that’d be where you’d see the difference. But we don’t test GPUs for review with low settings and we currently don’t test esports titles, so these would not show up in our data.

Others do. We’d encourage you to check them, as everyone in this space provides a different set of tests for unique value. This story is long enough as is, but what we can say is that our entire usual suite has now been validated on two low-end CPUs and we have found the performance does not meaningfully change the conclusions except perhaps in one main scenario tested.

Intel Arc B570 Unbound Testing

Grab a GN15 All-Over Print Component Mouse Mat for a high-quality mousing surface that'll fit your keyboard & mouse. These mouse mats use a high-quality yellow rubber underside, a blue stitched border for fray resistance, and are covered in PC parts. This is the best way to support our work and keeps us ad-free to support consumer-first reviews!

FFXIV - 4K

Final Fantasy 14 at 4K is up first for the unbound benchmarks on the 9800X3D.

In this one, the B570 ran at about 41 FPS AVG, establishing a 16% advantage for the B580 at 47 FPS AVG against a 14% price bump by MSRP. This is pretty close to linear. The B570 roughly ties the A770 in AVG FPS and 1% low, with 0.1% lows close enough. It also outperforms the RTX 4060 by 11%, the 3060 by 23%, and the A580 (read our review) by the same. The RX 7600 card landed at around 32 FPS AVG, giving the B570 a notable lead, especially at the price. There are also substantial improvements on the RX 6600, which was the previous leader in this price class (though it eventually sold for cheaper).

For some references to older cards, we also have the GTX 1070 (watch our review), GTX 1060 watch our review), and GTX 1650 (watch our review) present. 

FFXIV - 1440p

At 1440p, the B570 ran at 75 FPS AVG against the B580’s 86 FPS AVG, which puts the B580 about 15% ahead of the B570. It had a marginally higher lead at 4K. The B570 now sits between the A770 and A750 (watch our review), so the A770 has slightly re-positioned itself as resolution came down. The RTX 4060 also gets closer to the B570, now at 72 FPS AVG, nearing equivalence despite a larger gap previously.

This is the same behavior we saw in the B580 review: The higher the resolution goes, generally speaking, the more of an advantage Battlemage has over its peers in the class. The lead over the RX 7600 is 14% here, with the RX 6600 XT and 3060 (watch our review) below it. Some older reference anchors include the RTX 2060 (watch our review), GTX 1070, 1060, and 1650.

Frametime pacing on the B570 is good overall, performing similarly to the RTX 4060 for frame-to-frame interval. 

FFXIV - 1080p

At 1080p, the B570 loses its advantage against the RX 7600 and RTX 4060. The B580 maintains a lead over these two cards with its 124 FPS AVG, although its frametime pacing, indicated by the 0.1% lows, is worse than what we’re seeing on the RTX 4060 and RX 7600. We dove into this in the B580 review.

Overall, Battlemage and the B570 remain a large improvement over Alchemist, especially at the price; however, we still see that reduction in relative performance as resolution decreases, even with an unbound configuration. At 1440p and higher, Battlemage when unbound seems to be more competitive than it is at 1080p.

Starfield - 1440p

Starfield is next. Intel had a lot of problems with Starfield when the game launched -- namely, the problem was that it didn’t work.

But it does now. Despite working, NVIDIA and AMD retain an advantage with the RTX 4060 and RX 7600 cards. The B580’s 41 FPS AVG leads the B570’s 36 FPS by 12%. The RX 7600 leads by 17%, with the 4060 leading by a staggering 31%. This is an example of one of the games where Battlemage is disadvantaged even when unbound, even at 1440p.

Starfield - 1080p

At 1080p, the B570 GPU ran at 47 FPS AVG, planting it between the A770 of last-gen and the RX 6600 XT. Against Alchemist, it’s clear that Battlemage is a huge improvement when considering the configuration size of the A770 GPU against the B570 GPU. Against itself, Intel has definitely improved in huge ways. Against competition, the RTX 4060 and RX 7600 both hold advantages at both the resolution and with the game.

The B580 ends up 10% ahead of the B570 in this test, so its value isn’t always linear.

Resident Evil 4 - 4K

Resident Evil 4 at 4K was one of the B580’s strongest titles. In this test, the B580 marginally outperformed the RTX 4060 Ti (watch our review) in averages, with the 0.1% lows close enough to be comparable given wider margins. The B580 at 46 FPS AVG leads the B570’s 40 FPS AVG by about 16%, aligning with some of the other 4K results. The B570 ends up outperforming the RX 7600 by 7% and the RTX 4060 by 14%, which is an incredible lead for the B570 when fully GPU-bound. Considering the RTX 4060’s price, this is a big lead for Intel.

The improvement on the A580 is also noteworthy, with similar gains.

Lows on the B570 are not meaningfully different from those on the RX 7600, 6600 XT, or RTX 4060. The frame pacing is comparable.

Resident Evil 4 - 1440p

At 1440p, the B580 is still spaced about 16% over the B570. The B570’s lead over the RX 7600 has reduced and they are now mostly equivalent, with the B570 experiencing less consistent lows. This is something we showed in our B580 review, if you’d like to learn more about why it hits this ceiling.

The RTX 4060 also climbs relative to the B570, with its 70 FPS AVG result reducing the B570’s advantage to just 6%. This is while the RTX 4060 maintains slightly better 0.1% low results for a better average frame-to-frame interval. The B570 is still overall better here, but as we continue to reduce resolution, that’ll change.

Resident Evil 4 - 1080p

This is 1080p. With these settings, the B570 is now roughly tied with the RX 7600. The RTX 4060 is encroaching on the B570, which has had its lead when GPU-bound cut to 2%. That’s still impressive for the price and for the age of Intel’s new architecture. If we imagine the B570 line item were some hypothetical new NVIDIA card at $220, this would be an amazing move in the right direction for NVIDIA. The fact that Intel is still proving itself and working through some teething pains is the only hesitation that remains, though they have reduced that generationally so far.

Even still, the B570’s frametime pacing is inconsistent. It bounces around in this title, with run-to-run variance higher than we see on any AMD or NVIDIA device. This remains a challenge in some specific games. It’s overall acceptable, but not as consistent as its peers.

As for the B580, its lead over the B570 is about 18 FPS, or 16.4%.

Baldur’s Gate 3 - 4K

Next is Baldur’s Gate 3, which remains one of the best titles launched in the last couple years.

At 4K, the B570 ran at 40 FPS AVG with our Ultra settings. This has it just below the RTX 3060 and above the A580, RX 6600 (watch our review), and RTX 2060. The B580’s 44.8 FPS AVG result leads the B570 by 13%, with both exhibiting limited scaling in the 0.1% lows, indicating frame-to-frame consistency issues as compared to NVIDIA neighbors.

Baldur’s Gate 3 - 1440p

1440p has the B570 at 67 FPS AVG, between the A750 and A580. The generational uplift isn’t nearly as impressive here as in some of the other games. The B580 is about 11% better than the B570 here, with the RTX 4060’s 80 FPS AVG putting it 20% improved in average FPS, plus a significant uplift in 0.1% lows to represent smoother frametime pacing. The RX 7600 outperforms both the RTX 4060 and B570, including in lows.

Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty - 1440p

Let’s move on to Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty at 1440p.

In this test, the B570 ran at 46 FPS AVG, with the B580 at 54 FPS AVG. The B580’s lead is about 16%, which is consistent with other high load scenarios; in fact, the B580 bordered on the RTX 4070 in this test, which we didn’t see happen elsewhere but which has consistently happened in this game. Its lows aren’t nearly as good as what the RTX 4070 offers (at 50 FPS 0.1% to 31 FPS), but this was still a good showing for Battlemage.

The B570 reinforces that, functionally tying in average with the RX 6700 XT (watch our review). This is an impressive feat. For both, it’s the memory bandwidth benefitting the cards here. Unfortunately, the low pacing just isn’t as good on the B570 as its neighboring devices, including the larger config A750. The B570 leads the 4060 by 18% here in a staggering flip favoring Battlemage for averages, again with the caveat of the lows being better on NVIDIA.

Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty - 1080p

At 1080p, the B570 ran at 71 FPS AVG, with the B580 sustaining a 13% uplift in average framerate. Battlemage still has worse lows than neighbors. At this resolution, the RTX 4060 begins to encroach on B570 and functionally ties it in average framerate while offering substantially improved frame pacing behavior. The RX 7600 is the same, roughly tied with the RTX 4060 and overall a better experience than the B570.

Black Myth: Wukong - 1080p

Black Myth: Wukong is up next, tested at 1080p/high first. With these settings, the B570 maintains about 40 FPS AVG with lows around or below 30 FPS averaged. This has the RX 6600 XT (watch our review) and RTX 3060 both above the B570, with the B570 above the RX 6600 non-XT (watch our review) and RTX 2060. The B580’s 46 FPS AVG gives it a lead of 15%, with the RX 7600 16% ahead and RTX 4060 (at 54 FPS AVG) ahead of the B570 by 36%. That’s a huge lead for the 4060.

Black Myth: Wukong - 1440p

At 1440p, the B570 is reduced to 30 FPS AVG. This gives the RTX 4060 a 22% lead, with the B580’s 35 FPS about 15% ahead.

Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1440p

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is up next, first at 1440p/Max without RT. In this test, the B580 sticks to a 15% lead over the B570, so that’s consistent. The RTX 4060 leads the B580 and the B570 alike, with the RX 7600 about tied with the RTX 4060 and within run-to-run variance. The B570 is not particularly strong here. It’s about the same as the 3060 and outperforms the RX 6600. The price is noteworthy, although the B580 is overall more competitive in raw performance. In the least, lows are comparable in this test to non-Intel parts.

Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1080p

At 1080p, performance falls overall as compared to competition. This is consistent with other tests. The gap from the B570 to the B580 remains 15%, with the 4060 now leading the B570 by 30% and the B580 by 7%. AMD’s RX 7600 also holds a similar lead.

Dying Light 2 - 1440p

Dying Light 2 is up now. At 1440p, the B570 ran at 53 FPS AVG in what’s one of the strongest relative showings unbound for the card. This has it ahead of the RTX 4060 by 8%. Lows are also better, which is important for Arc. The lead over the RX 7600 is 13%. As for the B580, Intel’s $250 baseline model is about 18.6% ahead of the B570 here.

Dying Light 2 - 1080p

At 1080p, the B580 maintained an 18.7% advantage at 87 FPS to 73 FPS AVG over the B570. The RTX 4060 lands between the two and is closer to the B570. Intel has marginally better 0.1% low averages here. The RX 7600 is roughly tied with the B570 in this test.

Intel Arc B570 Ray Tracing Benchmarks

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

We’re moving on to ray tracing now, tested with the unbound configuration. We’ll keep this as focused as possible. These tests are not comparable to the rasterization performance, especially as some settings (such as upscaling) may change.

Ray Tracing: Resident Evil 4 - 4K

In Resident Evil 4 at 4K with RT and FSR, the B570 ran at 43 FPS AVG and with lows overall acceptable for its average. That has it ahead of the RTX 4060 in a strong showing for Intel. The B580 leads the B570 by 16%, which puts it functionally identical in performance to the RTX 4060 Ti.

Ray Tracing: Resident Evil 4 - 1440p

At 1440p, the B570 ran at 66 FPS AVG and tied with the RX 7600 in every metric. Considering the B570’s price advantage at time of writing, that’s a competitive spot to be. The RTX 4060 leads the B570 by 8%, flipping from what we saw at the higher resolution and consistent with knowledge that Arc disproportionately scales better at higher resolution. The B580 is 15% ahead of the B570 here.

Ray Tracing: Resident Evil 4 - 1080p

At 1080p, the B570 ran at 81 FPS AVG. The RX 7600 now slightly outperforms it. Realistically, these are the same perceived performance, but lower resolution performance scaling remains stronger on NVIDIA and AMD. The RTX 4060 is now up at 95 FPS AVG, a lead over the B570 of 17%. The B580 is about tied with the 4060.

Ray Tracing: Dying Light 2 - 1080p

Dying Light 2 with RT is up now. At 1080p, the B570 ran at 55 FPS AVG and held proportional lows, which is what we want. These results have it close enough to the RTX 4060 that they’re experientially the same. The RTX 4060 has a lead of 5% over the B570, with the B580 leading both at 65 FPS AVG. The B580’s average framerate is 18% higher than the B570 in a notable distinction. The RX 7600 lands below all of these, closer to the RTX 3060 and below the A580. Intel’s Arc has overall strong RT performance in this title.

Ray Tracing: Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1080p

In Dragon’s Dogma 2 with RT and at 1080p, the B570 ran at 39 FPS AVG. Unfortunately for Intel, this is one of its worst relative results. Ray tracing in this game is hard for the Intel cards. They don’t maintain the scaling from elsewhere when tested against the 7600 or RTX 4060 here.

Ray Tracing: Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1440p

At 1440p, the B570 holds a 31 FPS AVG, the B580 a 36 FPS AVG, and the 7600 and 4060 are both just under 40 FPS AVG. Again, Intel is disproportionately disfavored in this test set.

Ray Tracing: Cyberpunk - 1080p Medium

Cyberpunk with RT Medium is next. Battlemage remains super competitive here, with the B570 performing better than the RTX 4060. The average framerate is about the same, but the RTX 4060 suffers from wildly inconsistent frametimes in this test. We showed that in the B580 review with a frametime plot, where the 4060 was spiky as a result of its VRAM limitations.

The B580 keeps its 16% lead over the B570 in this test, with both outdoing the RTX 4060. The RTX 4060 Ti even struggles in this, also suffering from inconsistent run-to-run variance and low performance for 0.1%. AMD has problems of its own, mostly just that it’s unable to compete in this test. The RX 7600 is down under 30 FPS AVG. At this price point, Battlemage is actually the best in this specific test and setup.

Ray Tracing: Black Myth Wukong - 1080p (Experimental)

Black Myth: Wukong is up now. This is one of our experimental charts. This designation is reserved for charts where we’re still evaluating the methodology and the accuracy, and so you shouldn’t assign as much weight to these since we are still leaving open the possibility of some sort of test limitation or issue.

As it stands now, the B570 lands between the A750 and A580 with RT. The B580 is about the same as the RX 7800 XT (watch our review), with the B570 outperforming the RX 7600, so both are competitive with AMD. NVIDIA is up in orbit though with this game, with the RTX 4060 up at 52 FPS AVG in this test with these settings.

Power Consumption & Efficiency (Experimental)

Efficiency testing is up next. This is also a part of our suite of experimental tests, meaning we are still developing methods and that there is more room than typical for possible error or future revisions. This testing is done with an Elmor Labs PMD2 that has been calibrated personally by Elmor on our request. Testing includes both PCIe slot and PCIe cable power consumption, but excludes all other power, including the CPU.

Power Consumption: Idle

In idle testing, Intel Arc remains power hungry as compared to its competition. Using our test platform as configured for benchmarking, the B570 pulled about 30W idle. The B580 was around 35W. This is overall high.

Efficiency: Baldur’s Gate 3 (1440p)

Baldur’s Gate 3 at 1440p shows FPS/W, meaning that higher framerate and lower power will create the most efficient result. Higher is better.

The most efficient device here so far is the 4060 Ti of those tested. The B580 was in the middle of the pack, at 0.52 FPS/W. That had it between the 6600 series. The B570 is more efficient than the B580, at 0.55 FPS/W and below the RX 7800 XT.

Efficiency: FFXIV (1440p)

Final Fantasy 14 at 1440p is an OK showing for the B570. At 0.54 FPS/W, it’s near the RTX 4060 and better than the B580. This is an OK spot to be in for Intel.

Efficiency: FFXIV (1080p)

At 1080p, the B570 produces 0.81 FPS/W and sits again below the RTX 4060 and above the B580 and 7800 XT. Against AMD, Intel is looking good, but NVIDIA maintains its advantage here.

Efficiency: Black Myth Wukong (1080p)

In Black Myth at 1080p, the B570 sits between the RTX 4060 and B580 again. Performance is acceptable overall and far improved from the A-series, like the A580 or A770.

Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty (RT, 1080p)

Cyberpunk is the last one. This is a pretty good showing for Intel: The B570 isn’t tied with the RTX 4060, but it’s getting a lot closer. The 0.28 FPS/W result is far improved over the 7800 XT and puts it in 4th of the devices tested so far. Note that the 4090 (watch our review) looks inefficient here as it is becoming bound by other components at this resolution.

Intel Arc B570 Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Providing some highlights, our B570 conclusion generally feels very similar to our conclusion with the B580 in that Intel has definitely improved over Alchemist. The B570 and B580 are often outperforming the A750 and A770, which are larger configs, especially the A770. That’s a good place for Intel to be against itself. Against the competition, there’s a lot of trading back and forth. There are some games where the B570 is similar to or slightly exceeds the RTX 4060, but there are situations where the opposite is true. The trend that persists is that the higher the resolution is, regardless of the discussion around driver overhead, the Battlemage series cards will typically either gain on the competition or pull away from them, depending on where they started. You could also look at it the other way and say that as you approach lower resolutions like 1080p, results get closer together, and many times they’ll trade blows. 

Like with our B580 review, we didn’t experience any spectacular failures and crashes this time. Compared to Alchemist, the card is far improved. While NVIDIA’s drivers are known to be the most stable, Intel is certainly improving here.

In terms of value, the B580 remains a very competitive price, and the B570 is similar.  On average in our results, the B580 tends to be about 15-16% better than the B570. At the upper end of that, we’ll see about a 18.7-19% advantage for the B580 over the B570. At the lower-end, we’ll see about a 10% gain or so. That performance difference largely aligns with the price difference between the 2 cards with the B580 going for roughly $250 vs the B570’s roughly $220 price.


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Founders Edition Review & Benchmarks: Gaming, Thermals, & Power

24 janvier 2025 à 22:53
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Founders Edition Review & Benchmarks: Gaming, Thermals, & Powerjimmy_thang January 24, 2025

We take a deep dive and look at the 5090’s value, thermals, acoustics, airflow, frequency, and numerous game benchmarks that includes ray-tracing tests

The Highlights

  • The RTX 5090 is NVIDIA’s new flagship video card that uses the company’s new Blackwell architecture
  • The GPU does not live up to NVIDIA’s hyperbolic performance claims
  • The 5090 outperforms the 4090 by 20-50% in our 4K rasterization tests and about 27-35% in our 4K ray tracing benchmarks
  • Original MSRP: $2,000
  • Release Date: January 30, 2025

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Buy a GN 4-Pack of PC-themed 3D Coasters! These high-quality, durable, flexible coasters ship in a pack of 4, each with a fully custom design made by GN's team. You'll get a motherboard-themed coaster with debug display & reset buttons, a SATA SSD with to-scale connectors, RAM sticks, and a GN logo. These fund our web work! Buy here.

Intro

This is a big review, we’ll respect your time: The short version of the review of the RTX 5090 Founders Edition is that the thermal solution is surprisingly good for GPU thermals, if a bit warm for memory thermals, the rasterization gaming uplift at 4K over the RTX 4090 (watch our review) is anywhere from 20% to 50% (depending on the game), ray tracing at 4K is commonly around 27% to 35% uplift over the 4090, and performance improvement at resolutions like 1440p and 1080p see lower improvements. An additional storyline to this review is that the 9800X3D (read our review) remains completely insane in the best ways, because it was able to keep up even at 1080p without major bottlenecking in some benchmarks.

Today, we’re looking at gaming performance, efficiency, thermals, acoustics, ray tracing, and power consumption.

Editor's note: This was originally published on January 23, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing

Patrick Lathan

Testing, Video Editing

Mike Gaglione

Testing

Jeremy Clayton

Camera

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


First off, we have a huge amount of content related to this card coming up since the Founders Edition model is so unique. Make sure you check back regularly over the next few days to catch our benchmarks in common mini-ITX cases, the impact of the GPU on CPU and CPU cooler thermals, and some other tests. We also have a tear-down coming up.

Normally, these Founders Edition models don’t warrant a ton of discussion. This one does, but we’ll keep it short.

The RTX 5090 Founders Edition moves to a 2-slot design and uses a dual flow-through configuration, so they’ve sandwiched the PCB centrally and offset the PCIe slot to the side and down as a result. That also means that NVIDIA needs a separate PCB for the I/O that feeds monitors, connected via a flex cable to the main PCB. To get a 2-slot cooler capable of handling 575W or more, NVIDIA is using liquid metal with a triple-walled gasket to both contain the liquid metal and prevent exposure that could change its consistency and efficacy. 

The FE model does a lot of small things to improve performance, like exhausting the air out the top of the card and away from the GPU inlet. You’ll see that in our Schlieren imaging below.

We have a full video with Malcolm Gutenberg, Lead Thermal Engineer on the FE card, breaking down the changes.

RTX 5090 Pricing

The NVIDIA RTX 5090 is supposed to be $2,000 and will have official availability on January 30th, joined by the $1,000 MSRP RTX 5080 on the same date. NVIDIA also has the 5070 Ti and 5070 launching in presumably February for $750 and $550.

The NVIDIA RTX 4090 had an MSRP of $1,600, then was regularly priced around $2,000-$2,500 due to shortages and demand, and is basically out of stock except at terrible third-party seller prices now. The RX 7900 XTX (watch our review) is AMD’s closest competitor. Pricing is around $870 to $900. The company has also bowed out of the high-end race. The 9070 and 9070 XT, AMD’s next cards, should be coming around March or so.

Intel is currently only fighting at the low-end and mid-range.

Which makes all of this somewhat weird, because there are no head-to-head competitors right now. The closest comparison is the RTX 4090, then maybe the RX 7900 XTX from AMD’s side. 

RTX 5090 Overview

The RTX 5090 has 32GB of GDDR7 memory, which is a big change, and runs on the Blackwell architecture, which follows Ada Lovelace. It’s introduced alongside multi-frame generation (MFG) and DLSS4, which we’ll talk about later. 

The 5090 is also a true PCIe Gen5 device, but that’ll be another separate piece soon to check back for the differences.

If you want to see our testing methodology, we’ve published the test bench and the list of games and their settings here, which will let you get quick answers to what we’re doing. It doesn’t have every answer, but we’re slowly adding to it with each review cycle. 

RTX 5090 Thermals

Here’s a thermal chart running the RTX 5090 under its auto VBIOS fan curve with a Port Royal RT stress test at 4K.

GPU temperature plots at about 72 degrees Celsius once it hits steady state for overall temperature when tested in a controlled room ambient of 21 to 22 degrees Celsius. This GPU temperature is genuinely impressive considering the size of the card, and that’s important to remember. At 2 slots versus that 4-slot monster we’ve seen for the last few years, this is an excellent result given the size. Our prototype testing already told us what NVIDIA can do with a fully committed, fatter design if you’re curious what that’d look like.

Memory temperature ran warm, unfortunately, at 89 to 90 degrees Celsius. This is higher than we’d like to see, especially considering it could be warmer in certain case configurations with a higher internal ambient temperature. This is technically still within the TjMax of these memory modules as far as we could find, so there isn’t an imminent threat to the card, but this would be an area for NVIDIA to improve; our primary concern is in hotbox cases or small form factor solutions, which we’re looking into as a follow up that you should check back regularly for. While these results are higher than what we’d like to see, in most high airflow ATX cases, it is okay.

Adding GPU fan speed to this chart, the fans both hit around 1570 RPM. We should get to acoustic testing for more on this.

RTX 5090 Acoustics

We took the RTX 5090 to our hemi-anechoic sound chamber to evaluate it. A good GPU temperature is an achievement at this size, but that can almost always be done by just blasting the fan speeds and compromising on noise levels.

We ran the card at the default fan RPM that the card set itself to at steady state under our standard thermal workload. 

Here’s the frequency spectrum plot. In our acoustic chamber with a noise floor of about 14-14.5 dBA on the day of testing, the RTX 5090 was measured in our passive test bench at about 32.5 dBA total. That’s at a distance of 1 meter.

The RTX 5090 had some spikes during testing, including above our frequency cutoff, but overall has a very gradual curve for the plot. The limited presence of peaks and spikes in this plot help illustrate the relative uniformity of the whirring noise, which we subjectively think helps it blend into the background more. Noise is subjective, so although this plot objectively tells us that there’s a ping at 350 Hz and a bump in the plot around 515 Hz and again around 2,000 Hz, what matters is how it sounds.

This is a sound sample for you to judge on your own. Note that this is not identical to what we’re presenting as we have boosted it for purposes of being level with our video audio. Listen for the type of noise, not the volume.

Schlieren Imaging of RTX 5090

In our interview with Malcolm Gutenberg, he explained that the 5090’s thermal solution was designed to reduce recirculation using angled covers, which direct airflow. 

In this image, we're looking at the GPU straight-on, with it perpendicular to the camera frustum. This is when the fans are off but the heat load has already started. You can see the density change as the hot air leaves the card passively.

As the fans turn on, we see a sudden flare-up and movement of air to the right through the flow-through area out the back and toward the CPU tower. What's super cool here is that we can see the air kick up and out to the right at a 20-30 degree angle or so. We also see a really high flow area of air exiting from the fins at the outer edges of the heatsink design. This hyper focuses the flow and reduces recirculation around the front area of the card, which just means the whole design is incredibly efficient at getting air away from the board and into case exhaust fans.

Here's the table shifted to see more exhaust. The flow-through area has super high speed exhaust, illustrating why flow-through is so much more effective than shoving air straight into a PCB wall.

Looking at the fans spinning down at the end of a load and returning to passive cooling. Everything drifts up and away.

This next angle shows the card on the left and centered. The most interesting thing we see is this straight line of air shot out from those fins at the outer edges of the fan diameter. This is what Gutenberg was talking about in our interview, where they're capitalizing on the area of most efficacy for the fan blade.

Finally, here's the card straight-on, where we can see the amount of air shot up and out. You'll want to choose cases with some spacing between the glass panel and the card to help get the warmed air away faster.

RTX 5090 Frequency

This next line plot is to ensure the GPU is functioning properly and meets the spec NVIDIA publicly claims. NVIDIA claims the 5090 runs at 2.01 GHz base and 2.41 GHz boost, with room for that to change based on the load. Assuming the software monitoring is correct for this new architecture, we measured about 2600-2700 MHz during the test, commonly 2600-2650 MHz.

The RTX 4090 ran at about 2745 MHz in the same benchmark back when it launched and we tested it. Frequency clearly isn’t everything though, and it’s common that higher end configurations bring frequency down in some capacity. It’s also true that architectural differences also make frequency indirectly comparable.

Ultimately: The card is exceeding the specification advertised by NVIDIA, so it’s running as expected, which is good. 

RTX 5090 Game Benchmarks

Let’s get into gaming benchmarks.

FFXIV 4K

In Final Fantasy 14 at 4K, the RTX 5090 ran at a comically high 182 FPS AVG, with 1% lows that were nearly identical to the average framerate of the RTX 4090. That makes it 31% higher average framerate than the RTX 4090.

For a quick value discussion: The RTX 5090 is supposed to be $2,000, with the RTX 4090’s MSRP previously being $1,600. The 4090 is not commonly available anymore for a reasonable price, though. MSRP-to-MSRP, the 5090 is 25% more expensive and 31% higher framerate in this test. The memory capacity increase benefit isn’t seen in this game either, as that’d be more of an impact in professional applications like Premiere, 3D work, or ML workloads.

The RX 7900 XTX ran at 104 FPS AVG, the same as when we tested it in December (so there’s been no change), which gives the RTX 5090 a lead in this rasterized benchmark of 74%. The 0.1% lows are about the same between all of these devices at the top-end, which mostly comes down to pacing within the game. 

Prior NVIDIA flagships include the RTX 3090 Ti (watch our review) at 88 FPS AVG, meaning that the 5090 has doubled that performance. The frametime pacing was excellent on the 3090 Ti as it closely follows the average. The 3090 (watch our review) was more or less a flagship as well and at 77 FPS AVG. The 6950 XT (watch our review) was also once a flagship, closer to the RTX 3080 (watch our review) for performance.

The RTX 2080 Ti (watch our review) held a 54 FPS AVG, meaning 5090 owners would see an increase of 237% over the 2080 Ti. 

FFXIV 1440p

At 1440p, the 5090 again continues the comically high framerate by running at 317 FPS AVG. This has it about 17% ahead of the RTX 4090’s 272 FPS AVG. The advantage has been trimmed here, which could be because of an encroaching CPU bottleneck and/or because of architectural changes -- 1080p will help answer that below.

For games like this, you’d need a high-end CPU and ideally more intensive resolution to really get full use of the 5090.

Since we’re bottlenecked, we’ll move along but quickly stop to look at 1080p -- just for fun.

FFXIV 1080p

If you thought the previous framerate was funny, cast your sights upon 407 FPS AVG at 1080p. Sorry -- that’s 407.1 FPS AVG. 

Whew. Close one. As we all know, 407 FPS AVG is below the threshold of acceptability for the modern gamer. That 0.1 FPS is critical and is what finally pushes NVIDIA into playable territory for this game.

In serious news: The RTX 4090 at 376 FPS AVG means the 5090 is still about 8% ahead. This test really is just for fun though, but is a good reminder of the limitations of even a 9800X3D to boost the ceiling. 

Black Myth: Wukong - 4K

Black Myth: Wukong is relatively new to our test suite and is tested using the built-in benchmark. We benchmarked it at 4K for this. Currently, we consider this test in our suite to be “experimental,” meaning our confidence in it is present, but lower than other tests as we evaluate its reliability. We have been moving toward removing experimental status from it with each review.

At 4K and where we’ve only tested a handful of cards due to the intensive load, the RTX 5090 ran at 86 FPS AVG with lows at 74 and 70. This has it 28% higher in average framerate than the 67 FPS AVG of the RTX 4090. So far, we’re seeing a few titles around this 30% number at 4K. Comically, the 1% lows, which for us is an average of the slowest 1% of frames, are higher than the average framerate for any other card on this chart; in fact, even the RTX 5090’s slowest 0.1% of frames are faster than the average framerate of the RTX 4090. That’s crazy.

The 7900 XTX’s 49 FPS AVG gives the 5090 a 74% lead, with the 3090 Ti giving it an 89% lead. Improvement over the 2080 Ti is enough to feel irrelevant as a percentage, as it takes it from totally unplayable to relatively fluid.

Black Myth: Wukong - 1440p

At 1440p, Black Myth has the RTX 5090 at 130 FPS AVG, 23% improved over the RTX 4090’s 106 FPS AVG. The lows also improve. The rapid rundown against other flagships is as follows:

The 5090 has a 51% higher average framerate than the 7900 XTX, 75% higher than the 3090 Ti FTW3 (RIP EVGA), 99% higher than the RTX 3090 Master, and 189% higher than the RTX 2080 Ti former flagship.

Black Myth: Wukong - 1080p

Black Myth Wukong is heavy enough that 1080p still has some meaningful spacing, even without ray tracing. The RTX 5090 ran at 160 FPS AVG, with good frametime pacing establishing 127 FPS and 116 FPS lows. The 160 FPS result has it 20% ahead of the RTX 4090, diminishing the earlier lead (which was 28% at 4K, 23% at 1440p, and now 20%). This isn’t just a CPU limit, as we also saw in Final Fantasy, but speaks to other advantages on the 5090 especially at higher resolutions. We think the memory bandwidth is likely a large part of that additional scaling.

The RX 7900 XTX ended up 113 FPS AVG, with the 3090 Ti former flagship at 94 FPS and the 2080 Ti at 62 FPS.

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Starfield - 4K

Starfield is up next. We haven’t run that many cards for this at 4K, but have a lot of 1440p data. We’ll start with the more limited 4K data set.

At 4K, the RTX 5090 held 108 FPS AVG with lows that were within expectations for this game. The RTX 4090 ran 92 FPS AVG, giving the 5090 a lead of just 17%, lower than we’ve seen in some other tests.

The lead over the 7900 XTX’s 77 FPS AVG is 40%, with the lead over the 58.3 result for the 3090 Ti at 85%. The 3080 (watch our review) was down at 48 FPS AVG, with the 2080 Ti at 33 FPS AVG. AMD’s 7900 XTX and 7900 XT (read our revisit) are its highest-end cards available for the company right now, but the 6950 XT was a good deal in the back half of its life.

Starfield - 1440p

At 1440p, the RTX 5090 ran at 147 FPS AVG against the 132 FPS AVG of the RTX 4090. This is down to a 12% uplift. The 7900 XTX ran at 112 FPS AVG, a big improvement from its 4K result as you would expect, with the 4080 FE (watch our review) at 108 FPS AVG. The 4080 Super (read our review) would be around 1-3% better here if we had retested it.

Starfield - 1080p

There aren’t many reasons you’d play this game at 1080p with an RTX 5090, but just for sake of data: The 5090 ran at 165 FPS AVG here, with the 4090 at 155 FPS AVG. Although technically better for the 5090, we’re effectively at the CPU limit here.

Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 4K

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is up next. This is another new one that we added in 2024 and has been heavy on GPUs and CPUs alike depending on the test area.

In this limited suite of cards, we have the RTX 5090 at 133 FPS AVG, leading the RTX 4090 by 35%. This is one of the largest gains we saw in our test suite. The lows and 0.1% lows also scaled up, showing that frametime pacing wasn’t at the expense of higher FPS.

The RX 7900 XTX ran at 77 FPS AVG, with the 4080 FE at 72 FPS. Again, the 4080 Super would be about 1-3% above that.

The 2080 Ti from 2018 ran at 36 FPS AVG, and that’s without RT. The improvement to the 5090 is 267%. Climbing the flagships, the 3090 Ti’s 64 FPS AVG ends up giving the 5090 a 108% lead.

Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1440p

At 1440p, the RTX 5090 FE climbs in framerate to 189 FPS AVG, with extremely well-paced frametime consistency shown in the high 0.1% and 1% low values.

The 5090 ends up leading the 4090’s 156 FPS AVG by 21% and the 7900 XTX by 50%. The lead against these cards has fallen from the 4K results. 

Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1080p

Although we’re in territory where it’s not meaningful for the experience, it’d help us to understand the behavior by looking at 1080p. The framerate still increases, so we weren’t totally bound by the CPU. The 5090 hits 214 FPS AVG, leading the 4090 by 13%. What’s interesting is that the 4090 is now at the same framerate that the 5090 had when the 5090 was at 1440p.

Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty - 4K

Cyberpunk is up now. We’re testing the Phantom Liberty expansion in-game in the expansion area.

The RTX 5090 ran at 95 FPS AVG, with lows at an impressive 81 FPS 1% and 77 FPS 0.1%. These lows are excellent numbers and similar to what we saw in Black Myth: Wukong, where the 5090’s lows are outperforming the 4090’s average. The improvement in average FPS was large at 50%, moving from 64 FPS AVG on the RTX 4090. This is the biggest gain we’ve come across so far. Cyberpunk is very particular though and sensitive to areas of the game. Checking with Wendell, his Level1 Techs team saw similarly huge uplift.

The RTX 4090 had a large 32% lead over the RTX 4080 already. As for the older cards, the 5090 and 3090 Ti are in entirely different classes. The 2080 Ti is down at 27 FPS AVG and struggling to run, although to its credit, its frametime pacing in relation to the average is excellent -- it’s just that the framerate is low.

Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty - 1440p

At 1440p, the RTX 5090 ran at 181 FPS AVG, with lows at 126 and 108. The RTX 4090 held a 137 FPS AVG, with the advantage of the 5090 being reduced to a still respectable but lower 33%. The 7900 XTX ran at 120 FPS AVG here, which has remained a good result considering the price of the 7900 XTX as compared to its neighbors. That story is totally different with RT, though.

The RTX 3090 Ti ran at 91 FPS AVG, with the 2080 Ti at 57 FPS AVG.

We were fully CPU bound at 1080p, so we’ll skip it.

Dying Light 2 - 4K

Dying Light 2 at 4K is another heavy load for these GPUs. The RTX 5090 shows a familiar scenario of the 1% lows and 0.1% lows, which represent the slowest frames in our test passes, outperforming the average framerate of the RTX 4090. NVIDIA has managed to move the needle for at least the flagships, which we think is partly thanks to cache and memory configuration changes.

The 5090 leads the 4090 by 38%, another impressive jaunt not distant from what we saw with Phantom Liberty. The 7900 XTX did OK in this test as compared to the 4080. The 5090 runs 74% higher average framerate than the 7900 XTX and also costs about 127% more, depending on what price the XTX is. For professional users though, the memory benefit isn’t accounted for in almost any gaming scenarios we test and would be in other applications.

Dying Light 2 - 1440p

At 1440p, the RTX 5090 holds a 216 FPS AVG against the 4090’s 173. This has the 5090 25% ahead of the RTX 4090, down from its lead of 38% at 4K. We won’t burn chart time on it, but 1080p is only about 15 FPS higher, so part of this reduction in scaling is because we’re starting to approach the CPU limit.

Resident Evil 4 - 4K

Resident Evil 4 is up next, first rasterized and at 4K.

The RTX 5090 landed at 207 FPS AVG here, with lows running higher as a result of consistent frame pacing. The end result is a lead over the 151 FPS AVG of the 4090 by 37%, a lead over the 7900 XTX of 64%, and lead over the 4080 of 101%. Against prior flagships, the 3090 Ti landed at 89 FPS AVG, giving the 5090 an uplift of 133%.

Resident Evil 4 - 1440p

At 1440p, the RTX 5090 continued scaling and hit almost 350 FPS AVG, with lows that are at ridiculous levels with 281 FPS 1%. This puts the 5090’s average framerate 25% ahead of the 4090’s average framerate, so we’re seeing a reduction from the 37% at 4K, consistent with what we’ve seen elsewhere.

The 7900 XTX held on at 232 FPS AVG here, followed by cards like the 3090 Ti at 162 FPS and 2080 Ti at 92 FPS AVG.

Resident Evil 4 - 1080p

At 1080p, we see there was still scaling all the way up to almost 400 FPS AVG, which is crazy. This has reset our expectations of where the CPU ceiling is. If anything, this is showing just how good the 9800X3D is for keeping up so well.

The gap between the 5090 and 4090 is around 9% here, so we are actually hitting external limits.

RTX 5090 Ray Tracing Benchmarks

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

And now we’re moving to ray tracing benchmarking. This contains games like Black Myth and Cyberpunk, which tend to favor NVIDIA, and games like Resident Evil, Dying Light, and Dragon’s Dogma, which give some more variety.

Ray Tracing - Black Myth: Wukong 4K

Black Myth is first. This is an experimental chart, so once again, our disclosure is that experimental charts have a greater risk of unexpected results as we are still researching its behaviors. This particular title is considered experimental in our test suite because its performance leans so heavily in one direction that we want to slowly accumulate results to explore it further.

The 5090 ran at 88 FPS AVG at 4K, outperforming the RTX 4090’s 65 FPS AVG result by 36%. That’s a big jump. This is with upscaling, so it’s not like-for-like with the 4K raster results.

AMD’s 7900 XTX ran at 20 FPS in this title, which is why we say it’s NVIDIA-favored. The 3090 Ti ran at 34 FPS AVG here.

Ray Tracing - Black Myth: Wukong 1080p

Skipping 1440p and going to 1080p with FSR to get more cards on the chart, here’s where we land. The 5090 is at 158 FPS AVG here, leading the 4090’s 120 FPS AVG result by 31%. Against the 3090 Ti, the 5090 leads by 103%, and against the 2080 Ti’s 49 FPS AVG, it’s about a tripling.

The 4070 (watch our review) outperforms the 3090 Ti in this test when using FSR, with the entire top half of the cards outperforming the 7900 XTX. This test, again, is heavily favored for NVIDIA with the heavy ray tracing use.

Ray Tracing - Dragon’s Dogma 2 4K

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is up next. Again, we haven’t done a ton of 4K Ray Tracing tests here because it’s such a heavy workload normally, but the RTX 5090 ran at 113 FPS AVG with lows at 97 FPS and 94 FPS. The 4090 landed at around 85 FPS AVG, giving the 5090 an uplift of 33%. The RX 7900 XTX does better in this game compared to Black Myth, instead outperforming the RTX 4080 and 3090 Ti, the latter of which is at 55 FPS AVG.

Ray Tracing - Dragon’s Dogma 2 1440p

At 1440p, the 5090 jumped to 165 FPS AVG and the 4090 held 136 FPS AVG, still keeping about a 30 FPS gap between them, or an improvement generationally of 22%. The uplift has fallen as compared to 4K, keeping with prior trends. The 7900 XTX does similarly here to last time, landing just ahead of the RTX 4080 (watch our review).

Ray Tracing - Dragon’s Dogma 2 1080p

At 1080p, the 5090 continues to climb to 194 FPS AVG, reducing the generational uplift to 15% over the 4090. Let’s move on to something more interesting.

Ray Tracing - Dying Light 2 4K

Here’s Dying Light 2 ray-traced. Again, we haven’t historically run 4K here because only the 4090 and 4080 could be argued as capable. It looks like this next generation of hardware -- and hopefully that also includes AMD’s next card -- is changing that. The RTX 5090 ran at 109 FPS AVG, leading the 80 FPS result of the 4090 by 37%. The 7900 XTX is led by 137%. AMD has publicly claimed that its next generation will significantly improve upon this, so we’ll see where they land probably closer to March.

Ray Tracing - Dying Light 2 1440p

At 1440p, the RTX 5090 ran at 176 FPS AVG and held lows of 152 and 126. The 176 result has it about 40 FPS, or 29%, ahead of the RTX 4090. The 4080 hit 104 FPS AVG with the 3090 Ti at 88 FPS. Our 2080 Ti was approaching a decent framerate, but still falling short at 46 FPS AVG.

Ray Tracing - Dying Light 2 1080p

At 1080p, the 5090 held 224 FPS AVG, mostly establishing that we weren’t bound previously by the CPU. So when it was at 4K, the scaling was a 37% generational improvement, then 29% at 1440p, and now is 24.5% at 1080p. The reduction from 1440p to 1080p isn’t as big as we might expect from other tests, probably because there remains enough GPU load to where the CPU isn’t heavily taxed.

Ray Tracing - Resident Evil 4 4K

Resident Evil 4 with Ray Tracing is up now, tested at 4K first. The 5090 ran at 210 FPS AVG using FSR as defined in the chart title. The 160 FPS RTX 4090 result establishes a 31% generational improvement favoring the 5090.

The lead over the 7900 XTX is 56%, with the improvement on the 3090 Ti at 113%.

Ray Tracing - Resident Evil 4 1440p

We’ll keep this short: At 1440p, the RTX 5090’s lead falls to 23% over the 4090. This trend is consistent.

Ray Tracing - Cyberpunk 4K RT Ultra

Cyberpunk with RT Ultra at 4K is heavy even for the RTX 5090 when not using some form of upscaling, which we toggle off in testing specifically because of how unreliable Cyberpunk’s sticky settings are. The 53 FPS AVG puts the 5090 35% ahead of the 4090’s 39 FPS AVG result, remaining consistent with prior tests. The poor, old 2080 Ti nearly burst into flames trying to run this, holding an 8.8 FPS AVG as it crawled across the finish line.

Ray Tracing - Cyberpunk 4K RT Medium

4K with RT Medium is interesting. Dropping from Ultra to Medium predictably increased performance, but grew the gap between the cards with a 59 FPS AVG and 40 FPS AVG result.

RTX 5090 Efficiency Benchmarks

Now we’re getting into efficiency benchmarking and idle power consumption. For this, although we tested a lot of games, we’re going to simplify the charts and just look at a couple of game tests plus idle. These convey the whole story pretty well.

Testing is done by measuring the GPU power consumption at the PCIe cables and the PCIe slot with an interposer. Although we initially had trouble getting the card to work on the riser due to PCIe generation differences, in the final hours before going live, we found a solution to measure through the riser. This testing eliminates the remainder of system power consumption, so we’re isolating for just the GPU.

RTX 5090 Power Consumption: Idle

Testing idle power consumption, the RTX 5090 FE landed at 46W on the desktop with our benchmarking approach. The RTX 5090 FE measured lower in idle power draw than the Arc A580 (read our review) and about the same as the A750 (read our revisit). Even just sitting there, it’s drawing a good amount of power. Our testing uses Windows High Performance power plan for benchmarking performance, so switching to Balanced may help reduce this; however, we use that plan for all tests, so these are like-for-like comparable. We measured the RTX 4090 at 28-29W. The 5090 has relatively high idle power consumption with our test approach and this is an area where there’s clearly some room for improvement if only judging by the 4090, although the power consumption of the TDP is higher on this card.

Efficiency: FFXIV 4K

Final Fantasy 14 at 4K is low on results since we just started using this for efficiency for this launch. The RTX 4090 was the most efficient here, at 391.7 W to produce 138-139 FPS AVG. That puts it at 0.35 FPS/W. The RTX 5090 FE was efficient as compared to the other cards we’ve tested here, but technically worse off than the 4090. Realistically, they’re about the same. Despite framerate improving by 31%, the power consumption also increased by 37%. The end result is reduced or equal efficiency versus the last generation. This might be why NVIDIA is pushing the narrative so hard that MFG improves efficiency, except that’s like saying “why compare apples to apples when you can compare apples to oranges?”

In the very least, against the 3090 Ti in a like-for-like comparison, we can see clear and massive iterative improvements.

Efficiency: FFXIV 1440p

We’re showing 1440p to get a wider selection of cards, though the lighter load won’t look better for the 5090. The RTX 5090 ended up around 520W average for this work, landing it at 0.61 FPS/W. Efficiency is down comparatively overall since we saw the performance advantage also go down when at 1440p. The card should show the best gains in heavy 4K/RT workloads like F1.

Efficiency: F1 24 4K

Here’s F1 24 at 4K and with ray tracing.

On a technicality, the RTX 5090 is the most efficient in this test. It pulled 569W on average during testing and had spikes up to 580-590W, and because of the framerate advantage over the RTX 4090 with its 428W draw, it ends up at 0.21 FPS/W instead of 0.20. This isn’t particularly exciting and we have to highlight that NVIDIA’s claims of efficiency improvements largely centered around artificially generating frames, which isn’t like-for-like because the frame itself may not be the same or comparable.

RTX 5090 Conclusion

Grab a GN Soldering & Project Mat for a high-quality work surface with extreme heat resistance. These purchases directly fund our operation, including our build-out of the hemi-anechoic chamber for our acoustic testing! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

First of all, we need to start with NVIDIA’s complete bulls*** marketing. Unfortunately, NVIDIA just couldn’t help itself except to unfairly misrepresent its RTX 5090’s performance in the following slide on its site.

This image shows the RTX 5090 as being 2x faster than the RTX 4090 regularly, but as you all know from the review you just read, that’s not true. This image doesn’t say “different DLSS versions where we needlessly compare apples to oranges even though we have nothing to be shy of if we tested properly, it says “Performance.” And the accompanying caption isn’t even part of the image. Just saying “Performance” while making big 2x bars makes the 5090 look 2x better than the 4090. NVIDIA technically lists the DLSS version in the bottom, but most people don’t know what that means. Most people don’t know that writing “DLSS 4” under BOTH bars of the RTX 4090 and RTX 5090 isn’t actually the same setting. DLSS 4 does not do the same thing on both of these devices. NVIDIA’s own line of gray text that blends into the background at nearly the same color states the test configuration. This states that Frame Gen was used on the 40 series and 4X multi-frame gen was used on the 50 series, which isn’t like-for-like. NVIDIA is generating more artificial frames per real frame on the 5090 than the 4090, but they just list “DLSS 4” under the bars instead of making it clear.

NVIDIA didn’t have to do any of this, but between this insane reach of marketing and the claim CEO Jensen Huang made about an RTX 5070 performing the same as an RTX 4090, it comes across like NVIDIA feels like it isn’t good enough on its own. It has to put a bunch of makeup on the charts to be good enough.

Anyway, enough of the marketing bulls***. The recap is this:

  • Know what kind of user you are. Users of VRAM-intensive professional applications should consider the 5090 heavily, but we don’t have data for you today. Maybe in the future. For gaming, anyone who isn’t playing on 4K or higher resolutions won’t get as much relative gain out of this card
  • Generally, we saw 27-35% uplift in 4K gaming over the RTX 4090.
  • In one instance, we saw 50%
  • In one RT instance, we saw 44%
  • Most of the time, it hung around 30%
  • At 1440p, we saw those drop down into the 20s typically, even when not CPU bound
  • The card is one of the most power hungry idle power consumers we’ve tested
  • The card is the most power hungry for maximum power consumption and we worry that NVIDIA has elected to continue using 12VHPWR while pushing so close to the limit of the cable spec. We have a full video on the dumpster fire of 12VHPWR and 12v2x6 if you want to learn more
  • Efficiency is about the same as the 4090
  • Thermal design is excellent, with the FE card impressing us in big ways. That NVIDIA managed to make this 2 slots and still in the 70s while not being ridiculously loud is impressive, and they deserve every bit of credit for that
  • As far as value, we’ll be able to more easily talk about that next week when we can review the RTX 5080. For now, NVIDIA is launching the 5090 first, which makes it hard for us to know how close the 5080 gets to the 5090. If the 5080 accomplishes most of the performance but reduces VRAM, that’d be important information for us to have before making a value statement on the 5090, so we’ll wait for now on that

We’ll have a lot more coming up.


Investigating Reddit's Exploded 9800X3D CPU | AMD Ryzen Post-Mortem

21 janvier 2025 à 19:25
Investigating Reddit's Exploded 9800X3D CPU | AMD Ryzen Post-Mortemjimmy_thang January 21, 2025

We conduct a deep-dive investigation on how a Reddit user’s 9800X3D CPU and MSI MAG X870 Tomahawk WiFi motherboard exploded

The Highlights

  • A Reddit user’s 9800X3D and motherboard incinerated
  • We decided to purchase the CPU and mobo to figure out what happened
  • Our verdict was that the incident was likely caused by user error

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

We bought a used motherboard that has multiple burn sites, charred plastics, solder that has bubbled through the socket, scorched pins that were discolored by the heat and turned blue, and it’s accompanied by a CPU with a matching damage pattern.

Also, it smells like…magic smoke.
We’re taking a look at a failed 9800X3D CPU that exploded in the socket and motherboard. We’ll dive into what went wrong for a Reddit user who posted it a while back, hopefully providing an educational opportunity and some cool traces of catastrophic damage.

Editor's note: This was originally published on December 30, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Editing

Mike Gaglione

Testing, Writing, Camera

Jeremy Clayton

Video Editing, Camera

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


Overview

The used AMD Ryzen 9800X3D and MSI MAG X870 Tomahawk WiFi motherboard we purchased are heavily damaged and likely totally dead. We bought them from the Reddit user, who posted it to r/pcmasterrace after the incident.

The user said this:

“I built a new PC last night, and I couldn't figure out why it wouldn't POST. When checking for bent pins, I found that it killed itself. :(“

The situation immediately reminded us of the 7800X3D failures following its launch. Since that came down to a fix in the motherboard BIOS, other users naturally started asking questions. When asked about BIOS, the user said:

“I don't know what the BIOS rev. was because it never worked, unfortunately. It has whatever BIOS it shipped with.

It burned up before I ever entered the BIOS. The socket was brand new when I put the chip in, no bent pins or anything.

Edit: Since people have many theories about pins being bent, here are some more photos: https://imgur.com/a/b5x4BVh

The plastic is melted and I think this deformed them. It's a chicken or egg thing.

This was not watercooled and there was no water around this PC.

I don't see any stickers with the BIOS rev on it.”

The above images are some photos the user provided. As you can see, it’s bad. But we have our own evidence and microscope shots to get into because the Reddit user was willing to sell us the components.

The root cause last time, back with the 7800X3D, mainly came down to excessive voltage over an extended period of time, possibly in conjunction with poor internal thermal protections, and motherboard overcurrent protection (OCP) being set way too high. This led to dielectric layer breakdown at the transistor level in a runaway failure state, causing shorts and internal temperatures hitting the point of melting silicon.

In simple terms, too big zap force make CPU go boom.

Ultimately, the issue was fixed via BIOS updates leveraging stricter controls around VSOC, as handed down from AMD to the board manufacturers.

But this new failure likely isn’t the same. 

A lot of the internet pointed toward some potential user-caused damage from improper installation. We had some tell us not to buy the part as they were worried we’d be paying for someone’s mistake. While we really appreciate the concern, it’s the audience that puts us in a position to be able to afford to buy out catastrophic failures like this when they happen. We view it as part of the business: If there’s a chance of something educational coming out of it, we want to be there to learn it. Worst case, some guy installed his CPU wrong and he gets helped out, never makes the mistake again, and we all get some cool shots of a crazy failure. 

Best case: You never know when someone has discovered the next massive failure that could affect thousands of users in an anti-consumer cascade, like Intel’s instability, and it’s important for us to treat all of these events seriously and get the parts before they disappear into the hands of manufacturers with motive and opportunity to hide the results. Third-party investigation is important to transparency.

So, that’s why we’re OK with spending money on something that unveils nothing every now and then, because every time it unveils something important, we can help keep a company honest. And when it doesn’t, someone at least got a bailout.

Let’s get into the damage report.

Damage Report

The bottom of the 9800X3D (read our review) has two major burn sites with discoloration, charring, a hardened, enamel-like substance, and individual points of concentrated scorching where the tips of the LGA socket pins were located. Also, it smells bad.

The motherboard’s socket has damaged areas directly matching the pattern from the bottom of the CPU. The pins themselves are slightly bent out of alignment and discolored, with a few showing an intense bluing as seen on heat-treated metal. Solder from under the socket flowed up onto some of the pins, and the bed of plastic is scorched, appearing molten. There’s also one pin near the bottom that’s badly bent over, without visible burn marks. It, too, smells bad.

The plastic edge of the socket is damaged in two major locations. The bottom left corner shows marring along a slight angle on both the left and bottom borders of the socket area. Along the bottom edge, the plastic alignment pin is clearly misshapen, appearing crushed.

Moving to the bottom of the socket actuation mechanism (SAM, as AMD calls it, also known as ILM in Intel-speak), the hole in the base shows two points of physical wear accompanied by discoloration on the PCB itself. This area differs in design between the AM5 socket manufactured by Foxconn, which this is, and the other AM5 socket, made by Lotes. We’ll get into that later.

A final sign of damage is a missing chunk of plastic between pins 3 and 4 on the ATX 24-pin header, which we wouldn’t have expected.

In technical terms, this board is f***ed up.

We haven’t observed any damage to the back side of the board underneath the socket or anywhere else. That includes the top part of the SAM, which some people thought looked bent in the user’s photos. It is not bent. That may have been lighting and those users are incorrect.

The CPU and motherboard are irreversibly and catastrophically damaged.

Knowing all of the aftermath, we need some testimony.

Other key pieces of first-hand testimony from the Reddit user include the following:

In reference to the pins, the user said, “They were definitely not bent prior to installing the CPU. The CPU is bulging where it's burnt and the mobo socket is slightly melted.”

When asked if all power cables were plugged in, the user replied, “Yes everything was in place. I checked all connections when it wouldn't post and everything was fine. Nothing was in the socket when I put the chip in. That was the first time it was ever opened.

I did not update BIOS prior to trying to boot.”

This is about the time we stepped in, offering to purchase the parts from the user for their full retail price.

Hypothesis

Grab a GN Soldering & Project Mat for a high-quality work surface with extreme heat resistance. These purchases directly fund our operation, including our build-out of the hemi-anechoic chamber for our acoustic testing! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Moving on to our hypothesis, we thought that the cause of this failure was a dead short to ground, and not an inherent flaw in the CPU or the motherboard BIOS.

We thought this could have happened two ways and kept an open mind.

Option one would be a defect in the socket or the motherboard as a whole – manufacturers can always screw up. If the factory misaligned the socket in relation to the underlying PCB, or damaged the plastic surround of the socket, then it could have led to misalignment and a short.

Option two is improper installation. If the user installed the CPU into the motherboard in such a way that caused the outer socket damage and misalignment of the CPU in relation to the socket pins, then that would be sufficient to cause a short as well.

Detailed Support and Evidence

It’s possible that the issue was caused by something else we can’t account for, but given the evidence we have, we believe that improper installation is the most likely cause.

Now for the details and evidence to support our hypothesis.

The CPU appears to have been installed with an offset within the socket by ~1.01mm diagonally to the left and down at the bottom edge where the socket’s lower guide pin is. This is enough to cause the pins to mate with the wrong pads.

To determine this, Jeremy on our team took a measurement based on converting the known width of the guide pin (1.3mm) and then pixel measuring the microscope shots by pixel counting.

It took a while. There’s a lot of pixels.

This got us the distance between where the CPU’s guide cutout is supposed to sit versus where the plastic is crushed on the guide pin, then we converted it to millimeters. It’s not exact, but it’s very close, and establishes the basis of our hypothesis.

This is generally supported by the marred edge of the socket at the bottom left, and possibly faint rounding off along almost the entire bottom interior edge. This would also result in the bottom edge of the CPU being raised away from the socket in the Z-axis, adding light or poor pin-to-pad contact into the mix, i.e., higher resistance.

Taking a closer look at the bottom of the CPU shows that it was rotated by 1.0-1.4° clockwise, relative to the socket, when the burn occurred. This is based on the pattern of pinpoint scorch marks left by the pins. We carefully inspected the burn marks on the pads where you can see the point of contact, which is evident not only from the natural scratches caused by contact, but by the residue surrounding the burn sites. They should contact the pins in parallel rows, but the marks clearly show an angle. As you go along the pins, you see it diverging. Measuring in software, we came to the 1-1.4 degree offset.

Analysis of the burned pins in the socket shows that all of them are VDDCR (core voltage) pins that are down and/or left of VSS (ground) pins. If the CPU was shifted down and left in relation to the socket, then the burned VDDCR pins would have been in contact with VSS pads on the CPU, causing a catastrophic short circuit.

The fact that the top row of pins in the bottom half of the socket has no burns at all supports this, as those pins would have been in contact with the CPU substrate, not any pads. There’s nothing else conductive to touch in that direction until you get across the gap to the upper field of pads.

That said, not all VDDCR pins that were nearby to ground got burned. We can speculate on a few reasons for this. 

The skewed angle of the CPU in the Z-axis and the unknown pivot point would make the offset inconsistent across the 2D plane of pins. Also, it’s possible that some pads on the single-CCD 9800X3D are not connected internally.

The marring and discoloration where the tip of the SAM (or ILM) touches the motherboard PCB is less conclusive evidence as compared to the rest. 

Best case scenario, it’s just physical wear unrelated to the burning incident. Worst case, it’s a location where core voltage was able to find another path to ground and scorched the PCB.

Finally, the SAM doesn’t show any signs of damage or bending that we can detect. It’s made of springy steel that readily returns to its original state after flexing – assuming it isn’t pushed past elastic deformation into plastic deformation, or in other words, made to permanently bend. 

We think the area suspected of damage in the user’s photo is an optical illusion – a reflection or light shining through the top of the case.

Through all of this, we want to make it clear –  the user shouldn’t be bashed for this. This sort of thing can happen to anyone, and that’s especially true with newer platforms. We’re grateful that the user was willing to sell us the parts to inspect, because we had fun working through the diagnostic.

We’ll use it as a learning opportunity.

Concern about SAM/ILM Styles

All of this led to one observation that we hadn’t realized before that we’d like to briefly cover.

We have a new concern about the two different styles of AM5 socket by Foxconn and Lotes. Research on this piece led us to realize that there are actually a lot of differences between them, in ways that should mostly be immaterial to functionality. 

For example, the Foxconn socket has solid pins and solid plastic, while the Lotes socket has split pins and a more skeletonized plastic molding.

The discoloration on the burned motherboard where the tip of the SAM touches down raises our concern in general, even outside the scope of this piece, because the metal comes in direct contact with the PCB, directly on top of surface-level traces. 

We don’t think this is what happened here, however: Repeated socket actuations could theoretically cause the SAM to abrade through the mask and create a short.

The Lotes version of the socket has the insulation sheet run across this entire hole, adding a barrier of mechanical protection. 

We aren’t saying that the Foxconn socket will have problems, just that we would like to see more conformity to a single style between vendors.

We took a brand-new sample of the same model X870 Tomahawk motherboard and repeatedly opened and shut the SAM 16 times with a CPU in the socket to see if this area of the board would show similar wear or any change at all.

At the beginning of the test, we saw some disturbance of the protective sheet on the left, and a small spot of what looked like adhesive on the right, surrounded by an extremely faint discoloration. At the end of the process, it looked virtually unchanged, and nothing like the burned motherboard.

This pushes us to think these spots were subjected to heat, or maybe a direct short as we mentioned before.

Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

The short version of this is that, after looking through everything, we think that the result of all this is improper installation, which is something a lot of Reddit users were pointing out when looking at the photos online. 

Regardless, we definitely think this story was worth doing. First of all, it was a lot of fun to piece together a mystery. It also allowed us to possibly learn something major as you never know when some random PC builder might encounter something like the next Intel instability issue, where it might initially be perceived as user error but then proves to be a big, valid issue. 

In this case, this issue doesn’t seem to be something for people to worry about, though users should pay attention to how they're installing their CPUs. It’s possible that a situation like this could have happened if you tried to install the CPU with the motherboard oriented vertically. It’s important to lay the system flat to install it properly and to be careful with where the guides are aligned. You can also slightly wiggle the CPU a bit once it’s installed, but shouldn’t do it hard, to see if there’s something wrong.


Crazy Bad ASUS Pre-Built Gaming PC for $2500 (G22CH-DH978 Review)

20 janvier 2025 à 19:41
Crazy Bad ASUS Pre-Built Gaming PC for $2500 (G22CH-DH978 Review)jimmy_thang January 20, 2025

We examine the ASUS G22CH-DH978’s setup, pricing, build quality, performance, thermals, acoustics, and more

The Highlights

  • The ASUS G22CH-DH978 pre-built is a compact sandwich-style PC with a 14900KF, RTX 4070, and 32GB of RAM
  • The PC’s 14900KF was downclocked over 1.3 GHz with no option to change it
  • The ASUS ROG G22CH is the worst version of a pre-built that we've ever reviewed
  • Original MSRP: $2,500

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 All-Over Print Component Mouse Mat for a high-quality mousing surface that'll fit your keyboard & mouse. These mouse mats use a high-quality yellow rubber underside, a blue stitched border for fray resistance, and are covered in PC parts. This is the best way to support our work and keeps us ad-free to support consumer-first reviews!

Intro

ASUS in its infinite wisdom has made a $2,500 pre-built computer, which absolutely guts the multi-thread performance of the Intel i9-14900KF inside with over 1.3 GIGAHERTZ of frequency drop. They have downclocked it back to the 9th Generation, and it’s objectively the worst delta away from what the CPU should be running at that we’ve ever seen in a pre-built PC. This is the worst version of a pre-built that we've ever reviewed.

And what this tiny ROG pre-built lacks in performance, competent component selection, thermals, and value, it makes up for with its excellent name: This is the ASUS G22CH-DH978.

Editor's note: This was originally published on December 28, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Video Editing, Camera

Mike Gaglione

Testing, Writing

Jeremy Clayton

Camera

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


The computer is from ASUS’ self-branded R-REPUBLIC, O-OF, G-GAMERS and spends all of its overhead on the largest don’t-eat-batteries warning we’ve ever seen. This appears to have been made by the R-REPUBLIC O-OF L-LAWYERS. 

ASUS gets its own computer’s dimensions wrong, the retail page calls the side panel “tempered glass” despite it being plastic, and it says the design doesn’t use screws, but it does, and the system is a clown car of component choices with its DDR5-4800 RAM, and it’’s limited power budget for Intel.

It’s got a custom-sized closed-loop liquid cooler in the top under a quick release panel. 

We picked it up at Micro Center for $2,500 – so it’s not cheap – and we ran it through our intense thermal and acoustic benchmarks to see how it stacks up. It does not stack up. It’s... bad.

Overview

Here’s what ASUS’ marketing says about this computer:

“Condensed size. Concentrated Power,” “Compact with an impact,” and “Do more with less.” 

We assume ASUS means less CPU performance, which is accurate.

Despite this focus, ASUS' dimensions for the PC are flat-out lies -- and that’s the easiest thing to get right since it’s literally just measuring the computer.

It claims the G22CH measures at 323x115x287mm and 10L in volume. First of all, that’s 10.6L, not 10L, and 10.6 doesn’t round to 10; secondly, it’s also wrong because the PC actually measures at 324x123x292mm and a volume of 11.6L, which is way different from 10.0. Fortunately, it doesn’t matter because you shouldn’t buy it anyways.

Moving past that, cooling for the CPU is handled by a custom dual 92mm liquid cooler in the top, underneath a quick-release panel. There’s also an air-cooled version, but that’s not what we’re covering today because this computer already doesn’t need any help incinerating its CPU and we certainly don’t want to do that with air.

The ASUS pre-built also comes with an alternative plexiglass panel for the right side to replace the pre-installed metal mesh over the motherboard. The ASUS marketing material on Micro Center’s page explicitly calls it “tempered glass,” which it is not. It's plastic.

Despite being easy to see through the bulls***, it’s hard to see through the panel due to the dark tint. It also has a strange section of text that is literally just the definition of the “Cyberpunk” genre:

“Cyberpunk is a sub-genre of science fiction that features advanced science and technology in an urban future. CYBER represents the extreme technology of ROG while PUNK represents a culture with attitude and a distinct style. ROG aims to bring our users to the new future by building our brand around CYBERPUNK.”

Nothing says PUNK more than a multi-billion dollar corporation trying to use the technicals of a dictionary to define culture.

One last thing to mention here is that ASUS mentions the PC being a “tool-free” design, saying “you’re able to get into the internals quickly without turning a single screw.” 

There is, however, a single screw that the user does, in fact, have to turn and remove in order to take the top off for the first time.

Good. That’s great... ASUS has really gotten better this year. Just make anything up.

Let’s get to something that ASUS is actually a master of: Pricing.

Pricing

ASUS G22CH-DH978 Part and Price Breakdown | GamersNexus

Part NameDIY Equivalent PartDIY Part Price
CPUIntel i9-14900KF14900K / 14900KF$440
CPU CoolerASUS Proprietary 2x92mm Liquid CoolerThermalright 240mm CLC$50
MotherboardASUS Proprietary B760ASUS ROG STRIX Z690-I$180
Memory32GB DDR5-480032GB DDR5-6000$80
Storage1TB NVMe Gen4 SSDIdentical$50
GPUASUS RTX 4070 DualRTX 4070$550
CaseASUS Custom CaseLian Li A4-H2O$155
Power Supply600W PSUCooler Master V SFX 850W$130
Pre-built Price: $2500DIY Total: $1635

This is the part and price breakdown of the G22CH-DH978 variant we bought. We used identical parts where possible when building a DIY list, but the ASUS system has a lot of proprietary bulls****, so we picked the closest stuff that made sense for price and kept the general spirit of the build.

ASUS ends up with a premium of around $850-$875 over DIY, depending on day to day price fluctuations. That’s not as bad as the Corsair i500 (watch our review), but is still way beyond what’s reasonable, and is insulting considering the shortcomings of functionally turning the 14900K (read our review) into a lower-spec part.

We always disagree with the use of proprietary or non-standard parts when industry standard parts would work just fine. In this case, ASUS not using a mini-ITX or microATX motherboard kills future upgradability of the PC. Flex ATX PSUs are also available for this form factor – they’re just rare in DIY – ASUS could source one relatively easily at its size.

We take less issue with the custom-sized cooler since it’s matched to the case, but if/when it eventually dies, it will essentially be impossible to replace.

The worst part of the raw spec sheet is the DDR5-4800, which is abysmally slow and will hamper overall performance. You’re paying over $800 for the privilege of bottom-tier launch-spec DDR5 from 2021. The price difference is negligible for a 32GB kit: 4800 starts around $70, 5600 starts at $75, and 6000 can be bought for $80.

And none of that is even the bad part. The largest objective issue (aside from price) is in CPU performance. 

Benchmarks

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

CPU Frequency

Here’s a frequency chart comparing the 14900KF in the ASUS computer to frequency data for the 14900K gathered in our original review.

Average P-core frequency is 855 MHz BELOW spec at PL2, and a staggering, actually unbelievable 1,330 MHz down at PL1. This actually reduces a 14900K to under 4 GHz, which is crazy. The Intel 2700K boosted to 3.9GHz – (the same speed) 13 years ago in 2011. Now, architecturally, these are pretty different -- so we can look to the 14900K’s familial heritage in the $70 i3-12100F (watch our review), which boosts to 4.3 GHz.

E-cores don’t fare much better, also falling behind by over 1 GHz relative to stock. This is insane and is the worst setup we’ve ever seen.

Frequency Over Time

This chart shows that the system is clearly set up for the CPU to actually apply Tau (the PL2 duration limit). It exhibits different frequency behavior over time, dropping off a small cliff just after the 80 second mark. The P-core average falls below the stock E-core average frequency. It’s actually disastrously bad.

It’s all a direct result of ASUS slashing the power budget of the 14900KF to about 125W, or half of what it should be.

CPU Performance in Blender

This has a huge negative impact on multi-thread performance. The chart above shows the completion time of our standard Blender rendering benchmark.

The properly configured 14900K completed the task in 8.5 minutes, while ASUS’ configuration of the same CPU required 10.9 minutes. The stock result reduces the time requirement to complete the render by 22%. ASUS set this up so poorly that it made the 14900K perform the same as a 13700K in real-world rendering performance. The 13700K (watch our review) can occasionally be found for $295 and is performing equivalently to the $484 14900K that ASUS sells you.

Tear-Down

ASUS claims that the PC doesn’t require any tools, but you’ll need a Phillips screwdriver to remove a screw on the back.

Doing so allows you to pop off the top and sides of the case.

The side panels have a lot of steel and are pretty heavy.

Removing the other side panel reveals the proprietary motherboard along with SO-DIMM RAM coupled with a socketable CPU. We can also see small heat sinks on the NVMe drive, VRM, and chipset. 

The PC also has a daughter board that offers a PCIe slot for the video card.

The PC has a radiator up at the top, which is a unique shape. Its width measures approximately 95 mm, which is atypical, though its approximate 27 mm thickness is pretty standard. 

With its design, ASUS completely obstructs the front panel and its floor offers little in the way of airflow, despite having a small intake fan near the bottom front of the build. 

The power supply, which is on the back and bottom of the PC, has a small exhaust fan, but doesn’t get much air to pull from.  

The strange cable pictured above is for the front IO, which has another daughter board that provides more USB ports and audio headers.

One bright side to the build is that ASUS at least peeled the tape off the NVMe heatsink. 

We also saw random silver sharpie bits on every screw in the system. Fortunately, we didn’t find any loose screws in the case.

Remove the cooler, the torque was good on the screws. The application of the thermal paste also looked good. 

Packaging

Despite being purchased in-store at Micro Center and therefore not requiring sturdy packaging, it probably could have been shipped as-is without issues. The outer box contains the accessories and four foam corners that suspend an inner box with a handle, which levers open and raises up like a pedestal. There’s a cardboard and foam sled that holds the PC itself inside a fabric bag.

This is maybe one of the few things where ASUS was able to hit a bar of being acceptable.

Accessories

Moving to accessories: The accessory bundle has a super basic mouse and keyboard that aren’t good, wireless antennae, AC power cord, and the extra NOT-tempered-glass “plexiglass” panel. There’s also a box of paperwork with an installation guide, a very large don’t-eat-battery sticker, and panel replacement instructions. 

In what is one of the most basic mistakes, the install guide shows connecting the monitor to the motherboard HDMI port and doesn’t even have a GPU installed in the drawing. This is bad and misleading to a novice user. It’s especially weird since even the worst pre-builts we’ve ever reviewed get this step right since incorrect display header usage leads to high support volume.

Replacing the side panel is annoying. First, you remove the “tool-free” top panel without a single screw…by using a tool to remove the single screw under a rubber cover before sliding the side panel up. Then, you use two tools to remove 14 screws (of 3 different varieties with both PH1 and PH0 heads) from the side panel insert. Installation is the reverse, leaving the PC with a plain-looking and very dark tinted side panel without ventilation.

BIOS

If you didn’t have enough reasons to not buy this computer, we’ll move to BIOS.

On first boot, the G22CH restarted twice, so 3 attempts total just to turn it on. This isn’t entirely unheard of but is strange for a system that runs JEDEC spec memory and was behaving as if it had never been powered on after install. 

BIOS version 404 indicates that important Intel microcode updates are not found, since the build date of November 2023 long predates them. You’d be at risk of Intel’s instability problems. We purchased the pre-built PC in August, so based on ASUS' support page, version 408 of the BIOS had been available for around two months. 

The rest of the BIOS is mundane and lacks any overclocking, power limit, or even memory speed controls. B760 is supposed to have XMP capability, so that’s inexcusable. These restrictions further reinforce the power-hungry 14900KF as a nonsense choice and relegates the board to e-waste. It at least technically works for now, so it’s got that going for it.

One of the only nice things about the BIOS is that the fan headers are labeled well and are fully controllable.

Software and OS Setup

The OS setup also had problems. There’s an ASUS registration prompt at the end of the Windows 11 Out of Box Experience and user information will be shared with McAfee by default unless you uncheck a box, presumably so they can figure out how to make their software even worse.

Upon finally hitting the desktop, we were greeted with a suitably cool/edgy neon R-REPUBLIC O-OF G-GAMERS wallpaper. There weren’t any popups, but the start menu had the full complement of ASUS bloat: MyASUS, Armoury Crate, Aura Creator, and McAfee, which was the only one actively running in the tray and also the worst of these.

Overall, it’s basically set up just like a laptop that sucks – it just happens to be a desktop that sucks.

The pre-installed NVIDIA GPU driver was from June 2023 – 14 months out of date at the time of purchase. That’s absurdly old and lacks over a year of various feature updates, game compatibility fixes, and optimizations. This would lead to problems for the user if they didn’t get a forced update or didn’t know to do one themselves.

System Thermals - Full Torture

With the amateur-hour software setup out of the way, back to the charts: This chart has thermal results for both the stock mesh side panel and the solid plexiglass.

Generally speaking, the system managed to keep itself cool because it is underclocking itself into oblivion, and by that, we mean into frequencies that were common when The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion launched. 

Given that restriction, CPU P-core average temperature peaked at 68-69 degrees Celsius with the solid side panel installed. Sticking with the stock mesh panel gave roughly 1 degree lower temps across both the CPU and SSD. ASUS could have safely allowed a moderately higher power limit given the 20 or so degrees of headroom. It’s possible that the motherboard VRM is also a limiting factor.

Interestingly, the solid side panel gave a very slight – but insignificant – advantage to GPU thermals. It’s likely that increasing the resistance to airflow on the CPU side of the case forced more air to be drawn from the GPU chamber, therefore removing hot GPU exhaust faster.

Memory SPD hub temperatures show the same favor, which is something we’ve seen before in ITX case reviews when the airflow path is such that air is forced to flow directly over the RAM.

Acoustics

We also brought the system into our hemi-anechoic chamber for acoustic analysis. We built this chamber last year with help from all of you in the audience who’ve supported us via Patreon and the GN Store and have gotten heavy use of it since its construction. Thanks for your support.

The system operated in somewhat of a stairstep pattern for its fan control: You can see these relatively quick changes at roughly 375 and 700 seconds into the test. Noise levels settled in around 31.9dBA at steady-state thermals.

We aren’t able to see how the fans would behave under an actual heavy load because of the aforementioned CPU power limit.

Even though these noise levels aren’t bad purely by the dBA number, the quality of the noise is bad. Our noise sample exhibits an annoying low hum at idle that reminds us of a mini fridge. Take a listen here.

ASUS ROG G22CH Conclusion

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

The ASUS G22CH-DH978 isn’t remotely worth buying. The $850+ price premium over DIY essentially overrides any hopes the system had right off the bat. The custom SFF arrangement is not special enough to warrant the cost based on “cool factor” alone. It would need to both not suck, and have truly custom water cooling to even approach sensibility.

ASUS shouldn’t offer this flagship CPU choice if it’s just going to cut the thing off at the knees like this. Gaming-only scenarios wouldn’t show the hit as severely, but it’s still wasteful and passes expense on to the customer for no benefit.

ASUS added insult to injury by horribly crippling the performance of the 14900KF through a 125W power limit that isn’t even changeable in BIOS. It’s another scenario like with the Corsair i500 where the SI should have either built a system capable of running a power-hungry flagship CPU, or just not offered it to begin with. The performance in Blender showed it literally tied with the cheaper and older 13700K.

The proprietary parts are another big mark against it, especially the motherboard, which should have just been standardized to ITX or mATX.

Ignoring everything else, we don’t hate the basic idea – it’s very compact and sandwich layouts with liquid cooling are a proven successful archetype as evidenced by cases like the Era 2 and A4-H2O. The custom-sized liquid cooler is capable of dissipating at least 125W with about 20C of headroom without getting loud, so it could probably handle a 13600K (watch our review). An AMD X3D CPU would have been the obvious best choice for a gaming-focused SFF pre-built, given the generally massive advantage in efficiency they bring.

All that said, the price is just too high. Sometimes you have to pay a little more for less in the small form factor market, but this is beyond saving.


One of the Best Pre-Built PCs We've Reviewed: $1700 Thermaltake Vista 470M

16 janvier 2025 à 18:13
One of the Best Pre-Built PCs We've Reviewed: $1700 Thermaltake Vista 470Mjimmy_thang January 16, 2025

We examine Thermaltake’s Vista 470M’s build quality, value, software, power, thermals, acoustics, and more

The Highlights

  • Our build came with an 7800X3D, 4070 Super, and Thermaltake View 380 case
  • Out unit had 2 loose RGB headers and a slightly bent pin
  • The Thermaltake Vista 470M is a surprisingly good pre-built PC
  • Original MSRP: $1,700 (approximately)
  • Release Date: October 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

Between rental PCs, pre-built disasters, and just bad value, we’ve had a hard time finding good pre-builts over the last few years. We specifically went hunting to actively try and find one of the better mainstream options on the market. 
We bought the Thermaltake Vista 470M for around $1,700 and, surprisingly, it’s actually pretty good. This system has an AMD 7800X3D, which is already a huge improvement on most SIs still offering primarily Intel from some prehistoric marketing collaborations. It’s also priced reasonably.

Editor's note: This was originally published on December 19, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Video Editing

Mike Gaglione

Testing, Writing

Jeremy Clayton

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


We’ve never looked at a Thermaltake pre-built before, but they’ve been building them for a few years now. This one just launched at the start of October. It’s the Vista 470M, from the LCGS (Liquid Cooled Gaming System) brand of custom and pre-built PCs.

It’s got reasonable pricing and mostly good build quality. That “mostly” is because despite overall great cable management, Thermaltake managed to seriously bend one of the RGB connections to the motherboard – that’s one way to keep the terrible lock-lacking 4-pin from going anywhere, unintentional as this is. The system is also running relatively slow RAM, but sadly, in the prebuilt world, these types of complaints are relatively minor.

But in spite of this, we actually kind of like this system. That’s probably the highest praise we’ve given a prebuilt other than the Starforge systems we’ve looked at. Maybe that should be our new award category: The highly sought-after “We Actually Kind of Like It” award.

Thermaltake Vista 470M Overview

Marketing is normally loaded with memes, so we’ll start there:

“Embrace the exhilarating promise of domination,” Thermaltake says in surprisingly tame marketing cringe, and that’s about it. The rest of the language is pretty normal: Talk of completing a battle station, edge-to-edge glass, the usual MDF-fueled NVIDIA and AMD branding, and talk of the components. Shockingly, the only thing on this page that was worth making fun of was the exhilarating promise of domination. Once again, for a pre-built, this is already one of the more professional listings.

In the past, we’ve seen Corsair’s no-fewer-than 6 assorted “uncompromised” claims on a PC that embodied the very definition of compromise, so this is good from Thermaltake.

As we write this, Thermaltake is only offering its 470M in the Matcha Green colorway of the dual-chamber View 380 case. There aren't any other options if you don’t like it, but at the very least, it’s a unique color.

Thermaltake Vista 470M Pricing

Pricing for the 470M is pretty good, especially compared to some of the more expensive prebuilts we’ve looked at recently. Here’s the breakdown. We put together a pricing table for the components at the time we bought the system. This doesn’t reflect the newest prices in December, but is from when we actually purchased it.

Thermaltake Vista 470M Part and Price Breakdown | GamersNexus

Part NameDIY Equivalent PartDIY Part Price
CPUAMD Ryzen 7 7800X3DIdentical$476
CPU CoolerThermaltake 240mm CLCIdentical$80
MotherboardASRock B650M-CASRock B650M PG Lightning Wifi$120
Memory32GB DDR5-560032GB DDR5-6000$85
Storage1TB M.2 Gen4 SSDIdentical$55
GPUNVIDIA RTX 4070 SuperIdentical$590
CaseThermaltake View 380 ARGBIdentical$100
Power SupplyThermaltake Toughpower GX3 850WIdentical$85
Price$1,700DIY Price~$1600

There’s only about $100 of upcharge over DIY part cost, with the usual fluctuations of the DIY market. We think that’s completely reasonable, especially if you value saving time and don’t care as much about assembling it yourself. At the depths of sales, you might find about $200 to $250, but even that is a good price: Starforge was typically around $400 to $650 cost over DIY, with iBUYPOWER and CyberPower typically about $100 to $400, depending on model. 

As always, you could find greater savings by totally swapping some of the components in this list, but we try to compare exact part-for-part in these pricing tables.

It’s not perfect though. The launch of the higher-performing 9800X3D (read our review) at the same price as what the 7800X3D has been available for recently casts somewhat of a shadow on the overall value, but the 7800X3D (watch our review) is still a strong 2nd place in almost all of our gaming tests. Part of the pricing may be explained by Thermaltake getting the remains of the 7800X3D that has become suddenly less desirable.

The DDR5-5600 RAM is also, unfortunately, a terrible choice, given that the “sweet spot” for AM5 is at 6000MT/s and it’s essentially universally compatible across all of the current CPUs. 

It doesn’t even really cost more at this point to get better RAM -- the pricing is similar.

Thermaltake accidentally benefits from the higher cache on the X3D CPU helping to brute force and make up for some of that weaker RAM choice.

The motherboard and power supply are on the lower end, but don’t cross over into truly cheap territory. Also, since it’s 850W, the possibility of a future GPU upgrade is there. 

And because you own the system, unlike NZXT’s envisioned nightmarish dystopian hellscape that is its rental program, you could upgrade it with whatever you wanted.

The ASRock B650M-C is a commercial variant of a consumer board, but thankfully has a publicly accessible support page with BIOS and drivers. This is a huge improvement over what we’ve seen in the past, including Corsair using commercial variant boards without any public BIOS maintenance.

Overall, the parts choice and pricing are better than a lot of the pre-builts we’ve looked at.

Let’s get into the tear-down next.

Thermaltake Vista 470M Tear-Down

Removing a single screw on top of the case allows you to remove the case's side panel.

The backside cabling of the 470M is incredibly clean and reveals a non-modular PSU, which goes to show Thermaltake’s high quality cable management. 

The company hid cables at the bottom of the case behind a cover, which makes sense.

The main interior of the build has a clean assembly, though we did notice 2 loose RGB headers with one of them having a bent pin. It still worked, but that isn’t great.

Thankfully, we didn’t notice any loose screws, which is pretty rare to see.

Our 470M used a lower quality 450-watt 12VHPWR cable for its GPU. Fortunately the GPU in our system, a 4070 Super (read our review), won’t pull something higher like 600 watts, but this will prevent GPU upgrade options, like the 4090 (watch our review). So that’s not great and we would have preferred a 600-watt solution.

With the CPU cooler removed, the paste on the processor looks okay. There was one corner which could have used a little more thermal paste. We can also see there was a lot of force applied to it. Thermally, it was fine in our testing. 

Back to the system review. All of this testing was completed prior to the tear-down.

BIOS, OS Setup, and Software

The BIOS didn’t have any negative surprises, and was set to stock values outside of EXPO being turned on, which is good. This should be the norm, but because companies fail at enabling EXPO and XMP so frequently, it actually becomes the mark of a prodigal system integrator. That’s a sad statement, but experience has unfortunately set low expectations. The only strange thing was the date being set to January 31, 2024, which was easily fixed. The CMOS battery did not seem to be faulty. It just looked to be misconfigured. 

There was nothing else to mention in BIOS, which is good.

Windows setup was normal, thankfully devoid of any third-party software agreements deceptively tacked on at the end. Booting into Windows was clean, without any pop-up app assault. The desktop had a screenshot of a Superposition benchmark result, indicating the system was probably tested prior to packaging. Having a result stored locally for the customer is excellent, as it offers a means to calibrate against the expectation and gives customer support a way to help direct the consumer to a performance gauge.

The only additional software on the system was the ASRock RGB utility, which provides some functionality. There was no bloatware otherwise: No Norton or McAfee, no BS gaming services, and just a clean OS.

The pre-installed NVIDIA graphics driver was version 565.90 from October 1, less than a week prior to our original order date and only three days before the 470M even went on sale. This is awesome to see: Thermaltake might be better about getting the latest version into its builds than some other SIs we’ve looked at – it’s hard to definitively say with only a single data point, but other systems we’ve reviewed have sometimes had very outdated drivers, upwards of 3 or 4 months out of date, which isn’t good.

As a downside: There was a missing driver in Device Manager. Research showed it’s AMD’s 3D V-cache driver. It should be installed but disabled with the 7800X3D. We would like to see it installed, but Thermaltake lucked into the fact that this is a single CCD CPU, so this wasn’t disastrous. It absolutely shouldn’t be missing, but Thermaltake would only truly suffer for it if this were a dual-CCD solution with 3D cache.

Altogether, Thermaltake did a great job with providing a clean BIOS and OS setup with up-to-date drivers. We really didn’t have a lot of complaints here.

We’ll get into benchmarks now.

Thermaltake Vista 470M Benchmarks

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Power - Full Torture

Full system power measured at the wall is up first in our charts. This is captured while the system is running a full CPU plus GPU load with Blender and Port Royal on loop. System power consumption idles at around 60-70W and then climbs to roughly 150W during the brief CPU-only load portion, then jumps over 360W when the GPU joins in. It’s stable overall, and during our steady-state period, results in a 370W average. With an 850W PSU, Thermaltake has gone slightly overkill on the power supply, but not in a bad way. Most power supplies are at peak efficiency somewhere in the 40% to 60% range of utilization for capacity, although it depends on the power supply. 850W gives just enough headroom for an upgrade without increasing cost unnecessarily while also staying within a reasonable efficiency range.

Thermals - Full Torture

Next is a simple bar chart of all thermals at steady-state in the same workload. The GPU has plenty of access to fresh air, keeping itself to 68 degrees Celsius on the core, 75 degrees on the memory, and 80 degrees hotspot. This is all completely fine.

The CPU at steady state is 77 degrees, which is within the expected range for the 7800X3D with a competent 240mm liquid cooler. RAM SPD Hub and SSD temperatures were fine, showing a slight delta between the two RAM sticks. That’s normal.

Thermals are relatively hard to screw-up in this case since it’s so heavily perforated and includes 3 side intake fans, a 240 liquid cooler, and a rear exhaust fan. Thermaltake did not screw them up, so that’s also a good sign. Overall, the cooling configuration is good and performs well for what it is. We don’t have any problems with the CPU or GPU temperatures here.

CPU Thermals vs. Fan Speed - Full Torture

The chart above shows CPU temperature over time and plotted against fan speed. There’s an initial spike in temperature around the 200-second mark, which causes the liquid cooler’s pump (recorded as CPU1) and fan speeds to spike to control it. Outside of that initial burst, the rest of the curve is gradual, without any sudden ramps. This is all good as it should help avoid noticeable, annoying, and sudden changes in noise. Fan hysteresis seems good here.

The cooler fans topped out at 1908 RPM AVG, but the chassis fans only reached 429 RPM AVG. This is so low that we doubt they're contributing much at all to the overall cooling. The system doesn’t really need them to be going faster, but this points to them being improperly configured.

We think it’d be better to boost these speeds at least a couple hundred RPM to make some use of the fans, as currently, they are borderline ornamental at those speeds. It would actually result in a quieter system if Thermaltake slightly dropped the speed of the higher RPM fans and slightly increased the speed of the side fans, as they’d get rid of some of the higher frequencies in the noise spectrum by reducing the higher RPM fans. This would yield a better overall balance for the system than setting a few fans high and the rest so low that they do nearly nothing.

Acoustics - Full Torture

We’ll wrap up the charts with acoustic testing. 

This is done in our hemi-anechoic chamber that we built last year. We’ve been getting a ton of use out of this chamber for testing. The reason we built the chamber is to ensure a consistent test environment day-to-day. You’d be shocked how much daily external noise changes as picked up on decibel meters, and without good controls, we wouldn’t be able to fairly test and evaluate systems against each other from day to day as the conditions would be constantly changing. Our chamber allows us to eliminate external noises that aren’t from the computer, so if there’s a truck outside or some high-pitched wind whistling or something like that, we eliminate all of it with the chamber. That means we are correctly attributing system noise to the system itself, not to our own environmental factors that aren’t present in your situation.

The image above is a plot of dBA over time during the same full system load. The average noise level during idle was 18 dBA. Noise levels during steady-state reached 31.1 dBA. What we’re really looking at here is the ramp: Thermaltake’s system ramped to full noise level over a period of about 10 minutes, which is great. That means Thermaltake isn’t unnecessarily rapidly ramping and de-ramping the fans (other than that initial spike) and is utilizing time to slowly increase the speeds. This would help control noise levels during spikier workloads.

Frequency Spectrum

Here’s a quick frequency spectrum plot with data collected in our acoustic chamber.

The Thermaltake 470M under steady state full load had its largest spikes at the 223 and 380 Hz frequencies, followed by a dip, then another small spike at 500 Hz. Overall, this noise profile is fine. There is a slight spike at 1600-1700 Hz which could be flattened a bit by lowering the pump speed and CPU cooler fan speed slightly, but overall, there’s not a lot to complain about with it.

Packaging

Thermaltake’s packaging was generally pretty good, utilizing the tried and true box-in-a-box method, but with the oddity of using GPU box foam inserts as packing material (and from a different GPU than the one in our system, no less). We have no way to know if this is routine practice or if the warehouse just ran out of the usual stuff – at least it’s recycling. The PC itself was packed inside the case box as usual.

The glass side panel was screwed in for transit, which was good, and was taped to the front glass panel, which was annoying. But at least for the positives, making use of the glass security screw is the correct move and we’re happy to see it get its proper use. 

There was a QR code linking to instructions on how to remove the side panel. This is a bit strange since it’s a lot of extra steps to get to the answer: It technically works, but a simple instructional pictograph would be a lot better since they’re printing and applying a sticker anyway, so applying a sticker with a QR code to basically a single step is a roundabout way of conveying a message in the same space as the code itself.

The inside of the case was well-packed with a mixture of both closed-cell and expanding foams. Thermaltake did an adequate job of protecting the system during shipping. Ours did not sustain any shipping damage. We were overall happy with how this was packaged. 

Accessories

Now for the accessories: The included quick start guide provides an actually helpful primer for setup, especially for novices. Step 1 clearly instructs the user to plug the monitor into the GPU and not the motherboard, which should help prevent the number one easy mistake, and it also notes to flip the PSU switch to on, which should prevent the second most common easy mistake. 

The bag of accessories inside the case has the case manual, SATA cables, WiFi antennae, extra screws, and, curiously, two 12VHPWR adapters. One of them is the official NVIDIA adapter that probably came with the 4070 Super and the other is a mismatched-white that just looks bad. Nothing in the build is white themed, so we assume this was an accidental inclusion. Including the native NVIDIA adapter is good though, as there are a lot of reasons a user may want it in the future. Keeping the card’s accessories with the card is the right move and we’re happy to see it. Some SIs just toss the extras, which could minimally pose issues for second-hand resale when done with the system.

We’re not sure if this is better or worse than the used Sharpie PRO we got from NZXT. We didn’t end up mentioning that in the NZXT video because it didn’t matter compared to the utter trainwreck that Flex is, but we actually got sent a used Sharpie in the accessory box. Maybe it’s a trap so they can charge us for the entire cost of the system if we don’t include the Sharpie upon return.

Anyway, at least in reference to this, Thermaltake is looking good. We were overall satisfied with the accessories included.

Thermaltake Vista 470M Conclusion

Grab a GN Tear-Down Toolkit to support our AD-FREE reviews and IN-DEPTH testing while also getting a high-quality, highly portable 10-piece toolkit that was custom designed for use with video cards for repasting and water block installation. Includes a portable roll bag, hook hangers for pegboards, a storage compartment, and instructional GPU disassembly cards.

The quick version of the conclusion is this: The Thermaltake Vista 470M pre-built is one of the best we’ve looked at recently, alongside the Starforge Lowkey. It’s also the best value for money we’ve seen since probably the Maingear Vybe in 2022 (watch our review). The upcharge over DIY is only about $100, which is pretty much as good as it gets outside of major SI clearance sales. And even with the more recent sales since we bought the system, it might be at most $200 to $250 upcharge. 

Part selection makes sense outside of the slow DDR5-5600 – matching a still-excellent and efficient last-gen X3D CPU with the upper-midrange 4070 Super. It ends up being a good build. Thermaltake also doesn’t back the user into any corners with something like a proprietary motherboard that won’t get regular BIOS updates, which is good. The 850W PSU leaves overhead for a GPU upgrade down the road.

Now that the 9800X3D is out for effectively the same price, we’d like to see Thermaltake update the SKU with the new CPU and keep MSRP the same.

Build quality is overall good: Cable management was well-done, with the only major negative of the assembly being a bent RGB header.

The system’s setup was also a major positive for Thermaltake. The BIOS was sensibly configured and the Windows 11 install was clean, with impressively fresh GPU drivers. The only oddity there was a missing X3D driver that’s only necessary to the dual CCD parts, which the 7800X3D isn’t. As general best practice, we still like to see all drivers installed and no yellow bangs (!) in the device manager.

Thermals across the whole build are well managed, with CPU and GPU temperatures within expected ranges. Fan curves and acoustics are also good, with the one exception being the chassis fans never ramping up. 

Thermaltake could improve upon its fan configuration by reducing the CPU speeds in the curve and increasing the case panel speeds, which would slightly lower noise and create a more desirable acoustic profile, but with the same thermal results.

We’re overall impressed with this system. After how many bad prebuilts we’ve looked at recently, we specifically went hunting for good ones and bought several. Of those, one was bad -- and that’s coming up soon -- and another coming up looks promising. This one went well. This is our first Thermaltake prebuilt we’ve bought. We’d feel comfortable recommending this one. It’s a big plus to see AMD in use where it makes sense too, as a lot of the system integrators and OEMs are still embedded with Intel.

Well done to Thermaltake. We’ll probably give this system to someone we know since we expect it won’t come back with any problems.


NVIDIA RTX 5090 at 575 Watts, RTX 5080, 5070 Ti, & 5070 Specs

15 janvier 2025 à 21:55
NVIDIA RTX 5090 at 575 Watts, RTX 5080, 5070 Ti, & 5070 Specsjimmy_thang January 15, 2025

NVIDIA announces 4 Blackwell GPUs and claims that the $549 RTX 5070 is comparable to the RTX 4090

The Highlights

  • The RTX 5090 has an MSRP of $2,000
  • The RTX 5080 has an MSRP of $1,000
  • The RTX 5070 Ti has an MSRP of $750
  • The RTX 5070 has an MSRP of $550
  • The RTX 5090 and 5080 are listed to release on January 30 and the 5070 Ti and 5070 are set to launch in February

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Intro

NVIDIA today announced its RTX Blackwell family of 50-series GPUs. These include its RTX 5090 at $2,000, the RTX 5080 at $1000, the 5070 Ti at $750, and the RTX 5070 at $550.

NVIDIA claims that its RTX 5070 has “4090 performance at $549,” which is definitely something we will be inspecting. NVIDIA also stated that this is “impossible without AI,” also stating it is “impossible without GDDR7,” which the company is moving to for its 50-series video cards.

Let’s get into the news.

Editor's note: This was originally published on January 7, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Host, Writing

Steve Burke

QC

Jeremy Clayton

Video Editing

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


RTX Blackwell

NVIDIA spent a lot of time talking about AI, and we’ll get into some of that briefly at the end.

We’ll start with the hard information that we have.

NVIDIA announced its Blackwell GPU as it’ll arrive to the consumer market in January. The GPU, presumably the full Blackwell die, was noted as a 92 billion transistor solution (as compared to the RTX 4090’s approximate 76 billion).

Notably, the card CEO Jensen Huang showed off at the event appeared to be a 2-slot card, which he noted has 2 fans. This is a stark contrast to the huge prototype NVIDIA cooler we just tore down. This is a big swing from the 3-slot and 4-slot cards we’ve become used to, which were necessary for thermal and power management.

Hard Specs

NVIDIA also posted some of the hard specs to its website.

We can start with the power, which is listed as 575W total graphics power for the 5090. 

That’s a huge amount of load to put on a single 16-pin connector and we’re concerned about the strain on it. We also wonder if this will be coupled with a redesign of coolers to try and actively cool the area of the power connector.

The RTX 5090 Blackwell GPU is listed as having 21,760 CUDA cores, memory at 32 GB of GDDR7, clocks at 2.41 GHz boost and 2.01 GHz base, and a large 512-bit memory interface width. NVIDIA has iterated its Tensor core generation to 5 and its RT core generation to 4 for Blackwell, though we don’t yet have architectural details on what that actually means on the consumer side. We expect those details soon.

The FE card is listed as 304mm by 137mm for dimensions, and 2 slots thick.

Jumping over to the prior RTX 4090 (watch our review) for reference: The 4090 has 16,384 CUDA cores, down notably from the 21,760 of the 5090 -- but cores can’t be linearly compared, especially cross generation, so the real-world impact likely won’t track linearly. The 4090 also ran 24 GB of GDDR6X rather than the 32GB GDDR7 on the 5090. The 4090’s clocks are higher as advertised, though, at 2.52 GHz boost and 2.23 GHz base -- but clocks, like core count, aren’t everything.

Zooming out to look at memory capacity, we see the 5090 at 32 GB, the 5080 at 16 GB, the 5070 Ti at 16 GB, and the 5070 at 12 GB. For perspective, the RTX 4070 (watch our review) is also 12 GB, the 4070 Ti is 12GB, the 4070 Ti Super (read our review) is 16GB, and the 4080 is 16GB.

Going to a fuller look at the specs, the 5080 is listed at 10,752 CUDA Cores, which is slightly more than the RTX 4080’s 9,728 CUDA cores and not the same huge change we see with the 4090 to 5090. The 5070 Ti lists 8960, against 7680 on the 4070 Ti (watch our review), and the 5070 lists 6144, up from 5888 on the 4070 configuration. 

Again, these aren’t directly comparable as they’re different generations, but are useful for establishing how NVIDIA is positioning the cards.

The full specs page shows a 2.62 GHz max boost on the 5080, 2.45 GHz on the 5070 Ti, and 2.51 GHz on the 5070. We already said the 5090 has a larger memory bus. The 5080 and 5070 Ti both run a 256-bit bus, with the 5070 at 192 bits.

Other than the 575W of the 5090, NVIDIA lists the other cards at 360W, 300W, and 250W for total board power. Broadly speaking, NVIDIA’s power consumption appears to be increasing. 

This is good timing with our efficiency testing: It’s possible efficiency is up despite power draw also going up, but that’s what we’ll find out.

First-Party Marketing Claims

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

We’ll have our own benchmarks soon enough and you should rely on those or the independent benchmarks of other trusted reviewers. We can still reference NVIDIA’s first-party claims to get an idea for where they stand.

NVIDIA’s webpage has a relative performance chart that’s pretty hard to actually read, but we can get an idea. NVIDIA claims the 5090 outperforms the 4090 by over 2x in some situations, such as with Cyberpunk and Wukong, among others. In these tests, they list “DLSS+Full RT” as the settings. The footnote that’s nearly the same color as the page background says that the 40-series used frame generation in this testing, but the 50 series used MFG 4x mode. This makes the comparison not like-for-like.

We consider this approach flawed, but we’ll look at their other claims for full perspective. Switching to the RTX 5080, NVIDIA shows it as outperforming the RTX 4080 (watch our review) by, again, sometimes 2x -- this is tough to filter through differing settings tested, unfortunately.

The 5070 Ti shows beyond 2x gains against the 4070 Ti in the same way and with the same settings difference, with the 5070 and 4070 showing the same in NVIDIA’s first-party claims.

Of all of these, the Plague Tale comparison is maybe the most fair since NVIDIA notes that it only has DLSS 3.

As for what DLSS 4 actually is, NVIDIA ran this new blog post to introduce it. Of MFG, or Multi-Frame Generation, the post reads, “DLSS Multi Frame Generation generates up to three additional frames per traditionally rendered frame, working in unison with the complete suite of DLSS technologies to multiply frame rates by up to 8X over traditional brute-force rendering.”

The page continues to say, “Our new frame generation AI model is 40% faster, uses 30% less VRAM, and only needs to run once per rendered frame to generate multiple frames. For example, in Warhammer 40,000: Darktide, this model provided a 10% faster frame rate, while using 400MB less memory at 4K, max settings, using DLSS Frame Generation.”

This section of the article also indicates that you’ll be able to override the DLSS model used in games that don’t get updates from devs, which is already possible to be done manually by some users who replace .dll files. This new approach looks like it will be more user-friendly.

NVIDIA stated that its Blackwell GPUs will have 2x the memory bandwidth of Ada, at 1.8TB/s for the cited spec, it claimed 2x the the RT TFLOPS, and 1.5x Ada shader performance. 

The PCB showcased was a relatively small square -- like a further cut-down version of the 4090 FE PCB if you were to chop the wings off -- that appears to be sandwiched between two full flow-through fans. 

The design is shown in this explosion diagram where NVIDIA illustrates the PCB centrally with densely populated components on both sides of the board. The cooler also utilizes a vapor chamber cooling solution with what appears to be 5 heatpipes, assuming the render is accurate. The GPU directly contacts the vapor chamber as you would expect, with the flow through area handling the flanking heatsinks.

Uniquely, that appears to take some learnings NVIDIA had from this cooler, which is a full flow-through design. 

AI on GeForce

Buy a GN 4-Pack of PC-themed 3D Coasters! These high-quality, durable, flexible coasters ship in a pack of 4, each with a fully custom design made by GN's team. You'll get a motherboard-themed coaster with debug display & reset buttons, a SATA SSD with to-scale connectors, RAM sticks, and a GN logo. These fund our web work! Buy here.

NVIDIA also spent limited time talking about other AI features for gaming. Although it is publishing materials to its site, we’ll wait for the full architectural briefing to get into more depth. For now, the company highlighted these:

  • RTX Neural Material, wherein it showed an example material cut from 47 MB to 16 MB with this solution.
  • DLSS improvements by moving to a Transformer model rather than the previous CNN model.

NVIDIA’s keynote was lengthy and covered topics outside of our typical coverage scope. For now, we’re just focusing on getting these basics out to you and will revisit the other announcements in more depth as we have time to adequately read through all the released materials.

As for release dates: NVIDIA cited January in its keynote, but its website specifically lists January 30th for the RTX 5090 and 5080. It says the 5070 Ti and 5070 will arrive in February.


AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT, Ryzen 9950X3D, Z2 Extreme SOC for Ally / Legion, & More

14 janvier 2025 à 22:24
AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT, Ryzen 9950X3D, Z2 Extreme SOC for Ally / Legion, & Morejimmy_thang January 14, 2025

We delve into AMD’s CES reveals, which include new CPUs, GPUs and SOCs

The Highlights

  • AMD’s GPU reveals include the Radeon RX 9070 and RX 9070 XT
  • AMD’s CPU reveals include the 9950X3D and the 9900X3D
  • AMD announced 3 new SOCs: the Z2 Extreme, Z2, and Z2 Go
  • AMD also announced a new mobile CPU: The FireRange AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

AMD announced a ton of CPUs, GPUs, and handheld hardware today. The announcements were for the 9950X3D, 9900X3D, Ryzen Z2 SOC for handhelds such as the ROG Ally, and RDNA 4 GPUs like the RX 9070 and RX 9070 XT. AMD also announced a number of mobile CPUs. Our focus will be on RDNA 4 and the new Zen 5 X3D parts alongside the handheld SOC.

AMD 9070 XT & 9070

We’ll start with AMD’s GPU news since it’ll be the quickest.

Editor's note: This was originally published on January 6, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


AMD announced the existence of its Radeon RX 9070 and RX 9070 XT today, noting Q1 2025 availability.

Specs are extremely limited right now. The company did picture several partner model cards in its announcement slide, including at least one that looks like a Yeston model, an ASRock model, XFX, and all the others listed. The cards pictured above are generally 3-slot coolers that are 2-3 slots thick.

AMD says the GPUs will use its RDNA 4 architecture and will utilize a 4nm process from TSMC. AMD mostly described its specs with adjectives, which is unfortunately not particularly useful. Words like “optimized compute units,” “supercharged AI compute,” and “improved raytracing per CU” don’t tell us a whole lot. We’ll have to wait for that information.

Likewise, AMD announced that FidelityFX Super Resolution, or FSR4, will be released and has been built for RDNA 4. It intends to re-launch its Anti-Lag software solution that was intended to compete with Reflex, now in its Anti-Lag 2 iteration. We were not pre-briefed with any further information than this at the time of briefing.

The company is clearly self-aware, as it also presented a slide about its naming choices for the RX 9070 series. Go figure. The slide above shows that AMD intends to line-up the 9070 series, including both XT and non-XT models, with the RX 7900 XT down to the middle of the RX 7800 XT (read our review), whatever that means. The worst 9070 is apparently half of one RX 7800 XT -- or maybe that means 1.5 7800 XTs? All we’re missing is a note telling us that the image is not to scale.

Anyway, against NVIDIA, this roughly positions the 9070 series as comparable, according to this image, to the 4070 Ti (watch our review) and 4070 Super (read our review). We won’t get out our scrying stones for this hastily thrown-together image since it’s hard to judge without real numbers, but that’s at least how AMD seems to be positioning it.

The company claims the change is to line-up with its Ryzen 9000 CPUs and says it will reserve 8000 naming for its mobile CPUs.

AMD CPUs

Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!

On the CPU side, AMD’s two new desktop CPUs are predictable: The 9950X3D and the 9900X3D, which use the Zen 5 architecture that shipped at the end of last year and follow-up the wildly successful 9800X3D. The 9800X3D has been constantly out of stock due to the demand.

The 9950X3D is a 16C/32T part that advertises a maximum boost frequency of “up to 5.7GHz,” noting a 144MB total cache size. At the time of writing this, AMD has not provided pricing details or a specific release date beyond sometime within the next few months. 

For comparison, the 9800X3D (read our review) has a total 104MB cache and $480 MSRP. The advertised boost of the 9800X3D is 5.2GHz, so the 9950X3D has a greater cache size and may benefit from higher boosting. The 144MB cache on the 9950X3D comes from the additional CCD in the configuration and could have some specific benefits that we’ll explore in our eventual review. 

The 9900X3D is a 12C/24T component that advertises up to a 5.5 GHz boost max. It has a 140MB total cache. The 9950X3D runs a 170W TDP, with the 9900X3D at 120W. The 9800X3D is also 120W. Because of this, the 9800X3D may benefit from additional power available during fully loaded workloads. There could be some shuffling of the CPU stack in specific benchmarks due to the power budget differences.

AMD’s updated chipset drivers should more intelligently park CCDs and, in theory, should make it easier to upgrade in-socket without needing to blow away the whole OS prior to moving from a single-CCD part to a dual-CCD part. We will still be using isolated SSDs for our reviews, but this should be a benefit for end users who may later seek to upgrade in-socket.

AMD published some first-party claims. As usual, we’ll have our own numbers soon -- as will basically all other reviewers -- and so you should wait for those prior to making decisions. To set the stage for what we’re verifying against, AMD is claiming the following:

AMD says this is “the world’s best gaming processor,” though note that they are comparing it to the 7950X3D (watch our review). The 9950X3D is shown as being on average 8% better across 40 games that AMD tested, with a range of no change to a 58% uplift over baseline compared to the 7950X3D.

AMD also claims that it outperforms the 285K (read our review) by 20% on average across 40 games. We definitely believe this, based on numbers we ran for the 9800X3D and 285K already.

Its first-party numbers also point to performance improvement in Blender, with lesser improvements in Photoshop and Premiere in PugetBench testing against AMD’s own prior processor.

Historically, these CPUs do not necessarily provide significant improvements over the single-CCD X3D CPUs of the same generation. You might see rough equivalence or slight changes in specific games. The primary advantage would be for someone who does a lot of gaming but also wants the additional cores for production workloads. 

The other historical challenge has been behavior with core parking, something we’ve now detailed extensively. While core parking is still a “thing,” AMD says its new chipset drivers should resolve a lot of the past issues.

AMD Z2 SOC

AMD’s Z2 SOC follows-up the Z1 and Z1 Extreme mobile solutions that were found on some handheld devices. AMD has also offered mobile chips like the 7840U and 8840U that have been in handheld devices and are comparable.

The Z2 is light on information: AMD again defers to descriptors like ‘breathtaking” and “exhilarating speed,” which we assume is the next speed setting for a Back to the Future movie. 

It also gets into some business-y stuff, like the addressable market and increase in competition in this market.

As for actual news, the Z2 family comes in 3 variations currently known: The Z2 Extreme, Z2 Go, and the…Z2 non-Extreme, non-Go.

The Z2 Extreme and Z2 are both 8C/16T parts with the same cache and a boost frequency separated only by 100 MHz. The actual change comes in the form of the integrated graphics. This is also where the Z1 and Z1 Extreme deviated most heavily. The configurable TDP allows up to 5W more driven to the Z2 Extreme, which will cost battery life but help power the GPU. The Z2 has a higher boost clock despite a lower cTDP, likely due to overall package budget allocation with the GPU change (and also density).

The Z2 Go is new. This is a 4C/8T part that only boosts to 4.3 GHz maximum advertised, only has 10 MB of cache, keeps the 15-30W cTDP, and keeps the 12 CUs. This CPU is far weaker than the others listed here, especially with that clock drop, so we’re curious to see what types of devices make the best use of it. We’ll also be curious to see battery life and if it can stick closer to that 15W number while still providing meaningful performance.

These are all listed for Q1 2025 availability, so we’ll be busy on our team running handheld benchmarks once again here soon. We ran several reviews last generation and will need to do a total refresh.

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

AMD HX3D

We’d like to dedicate this next section to our late friend Gordon Mah Ung, who once joined us to complain about AMD’s mobile CPU naming scheme.

AMD’s new mobile CPU is the FireRange AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D that’s releasing in 1H 2025, and it’s joining the 9955HX and 9850HX mobile parts.

The 9955HX3D is advertised as what AMD claims is the best gaming and content creation part for mobile. We don’t really test mobile, but we certainly use high-end laptops for our travel and might try these out.

The 9955HX3D is a 16C/32T part that boosts up to 5.4GHz. It has 144 MB of cache and a TDP of 54W. The 9955HX is the same, but with less cache. The 9850HX is a 12C/24T part with lower boost, no X3D cache by mercy of its easier name, and the same TDP.

AMD also spent some time on its new “AI” brand name mobile processors, but we’ll leave that to someone else to cover as that’s not really our area of focus.


Intel At Its Best: Revisiting the i9-12900K, i7-12700K, i5-12600K, 12400, & i3-12100F in 2024

6 janvier 2025 à 21:37
Intel At Its Best: Revisiting the i9-12900K, i7-12700K, i5-12600K, 12400, & i3-12100F in 2024jimmy_thang January 6, 2025

We compare Intel’s 12th gen CPUs against newer CPUs in a variety of gaming and productivity benchmarks

The Highlights

  • Alder Lake brought a new platform that included new I/O, options for both DDR4 and DDR5 and PCIe Gen5
  • Intel’s 12th gen CPUs are no longer chart toppers
  • Intel’s 12th series CPUs escaped the company’s 13th and 14th gen issues

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

We’re revisiting Intel’s best recent CPUs right now. Intel Alder Lake managed to escape the 13th & 14th “Gen” issues without a scratch while also being the start to this era of CPUs. They can socket into the same motherboard as a 14900K in many instances and are somehow even still available for (sometimes) reasonable prices. Recently, the 12900K was as low as $120 from Best Buy as it got purged from inventory.
In this article, we’re revisiting the 12900K (watch our review), 12700K via our KF, the 12600K, 12400, and 12100F.

Editor's note: This was originally published on November 17, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing, Video Editing

Steve Burke

Testing
Patrick Lathan

Mike Gaglione

Video Editing

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


As a quick reminder of the history of these parts, this is what we thought of them back when they launched: “This is an excellent first volley from Intel with Alder Lake. It is on the expensive side. Price has crept up, performance, fortunately, has also crept up but so too has power. You get some new and exciting technologies with Alder Lake; DDR5 being one of them. Ultimately, it's about how this competes and this has surprisingly decent value when compared to the 5900X (watch our review) and the 5950X (watch our review), especially in production workloads. There are places where AMD still holds an advantage but they have gotten slimmer.”

That was for the 12900K. For the 12100F (watch our review), we were also relatively positive: “At $130, it's actually a pretty exciting CPU for us to review because, for gaming, it did very well. And even with a high-end GPU, it's doing pretty well, so we were impressed with its gaming performance.”

It feels weird to revisit our old reviews because we were really excited about what Intel was doing at the time. It was fiercely competitive. 

It’s easy to forget how positive we were on some of Intel’s launches back from the 8000 series into the 12th Gen with Alder Lake when looking at the last few rounds. The 13 and 14 series CPUs were largely refreshes, but Alder Lake brought a new platform forward with new I/O, including options for both DDR4 and DDR5 and PCIe Gen5.

AMD had also forsaken its budget market at this time: Going back through our old reviews, we were reminded of how AMD had gotten so comfortable in its position that it had stopped the 5000 series briefly at the 5600X (watch our review) levels. They introduced the 5600 (watch our review) to help with this, but overall, AMD’s pricing was much higher than it had been in the preceding generations. That left Intel with a huge gap to fill with its 12100F, which later went on to land on our Best CPUs of the Year awards list for at least 2 years for its viability as a true budget gaming part.

So that’s the history. These CPUs were exciting. 

For this revisit, to make space on the charts so they are somewhat legible, we’re removing the 7900 non-X, 7700 non-X (watch our review), and 7950X (watch our review) ECO Mode results from gaming benchmarks. You can find all these numbers in our 9800X3D review or 7600X3D CPU review if you’d like them. They are directly comparable.

That’s enough of a history lesson. Let’s get into it -- and we’ll start with a new set of experimental charts.

Modern Equivalent Table (Gaming)

Equivalent Gaming Performance in 2024 | Alder Lake Revisit | GamersNexus | EXPERIMENTAL CHARTS
12900K12700K12600K1240012100F
Stellarisi5-14600K
R5 7600
i5-13600K
5600X3D/5700X3D
R7 5800X
R5 5600X
R5 5600XNo Modern Neighbor
Closest: R7 3700X
F1 24i5-13600K
R5 7600X
Ultra 5 245K
Ultra 5 245K
5600X/5800X
R5 5600X5600XNo Modern Neighbor
Closest: R7 3700X
Dragon's Dogma 2R5 5600X3D
Ultra 7 265K
Ultra 5 245K
i5-13600K
R7 9700X
i5-13600K
R7 9700X
R9 7900X
R9 7900X
R7 7700X
R5 5600X
R7 3700X
Rainbow Six SiegeUltra 5 245K
[worse lows]
R7 5800X
No Immediate Neighbor
Closest: Ultra 5
245K, 12400
No Suitable Comparison:
- No Modern Neighbor
- No Immediate Neighbor
No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R7 3700X
No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R7 3700X
Total War: Warhammer IIIUltra 7 265K
R5 5600X3D
R7 5800X
R7 5700X3D
R5 5600X
R9 7900XR9 7900No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 3600
Starfield5800X3D
i5-13600K
R9 7950X
R5 7600X3D
Ultra 5 245K
R7 5700X3D
R7 7700X/9700X
R9 7900X
R7 5800X
R5 9600X
R5 5600X
No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 3600
Final Fantasy XIVR9 7900
i5-13600K
Ultra 7 265K
R9 7900
i5-13600K
Ultra 7 265K
Ultra 5 245KUltra 5 245KNo Modern Neighbor
Closest: R7 3700X
Baldur's Gate 3R9 9700X/9900X
Ultra 7 265K
R9 7900/X
Ultra 5 245K
R7 7700X
R5 7600X
i5-13600K
R5 5600X
R5 7600X
i5-13600K
R5 5600X
DNF
Issues running benchmark

We have a table we’re experimenting with for this. This table will list the closest equivalent component for each application tested. Sometimes the ranges don’t line-up well, so we chose the closest within reason, but deferred to older parts where necessary. We defined “modern” as anything from Ryzen 5000 or newer and anything from Intel 13 and newer, even though 5000 can be pretty old -- it opened up more comparisons.

Broadly speaking, we noticed that the 12900K is similar to a newer i5 in several games. This included Stellaris, F1 24, Starfield, Final Fantasy XIV, and the Ultra 5 in Rainbow Six (but with worse lows). The Ultra 7 265K (read our review) was also close in Final Fantasy and Baldur’s Gate 3. AMD’s CPUs are more varied, and include the 7600 (watch our review), 7600X (watch our review), 5800X, and some X3D parts, generally those are higher performers.

The 12700K was broadly similar to an Ultra 5 245K from Intel or a 5600X to 5800X from AMD, with some X3D presence. Most X3D parts perform much higher than these Alder Lake CPUs.

The 12600K was regularly near the 5800X and 13600K CPUs.

The 12400 regularly neighbored the 5600X and sometimes the 245K or 9600X. The 12100F had few modern neighbors, mostly aligning with a 3700X (watch our review) or 3600 (watch our review) for gaming performance.

Modern Equivalent Table (Production)

Equivalent Production Performance in 2024 | Alder Lake Revisit | GamersNexus | EXPERIMENTAL CHARTS
12900K12700K12600K1240012100F
Blenderi7-13700K
R9 7900
i5-13600K
R7 7700X
R5 9600X
R7 5800X
No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 3600
Closest: R7 2700
No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 2600
Chromium Code Compilei7-13700K
R9 7900/X
i5-14600K
Ultra 5 245K
R7 9700X
R5 9600XR5 5600X3DNo Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 2600
7-Zip Compressioni5-14600K
R7 9800X3D
Ultra 5 245K
R7 7700X
R7 9700X
R5 7600X/9600X
R7 5700X3D
R5 5600XNo Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 2600
7-Zip DecompressionUltra 7 265K
R7 9800X3D
R7 7700X
R7 5800X
Ultra 5 245K
R5 7600X3D
R5 5600X
No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 2600
No Suitable Comparison:
- No Modern Neighbor
- No Immediate Neighbor
Adobe PhotoshopR5 7600X3D
i5-14600K
i5-13600K
R7 5800X3D
i5-13600K
R7 5800X/X3D
R7 5800X
R5 5600X3D
R5 5600XNo Modern Neighbor
Closest: R7 3700X
Adobe PremiereR7 9800X3D
Ultra 5 245K
i5-13600K
R7 9700X
R7 7800X3D
R5 9600X
R5 7600X
R5 5600X3D
R5 5600X
No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 2600

Here’s the same concept, but applied to production workloads.

Intel Alder Lake does better here for modern equivalents. The 12900K is regularly similar to a 13700K (watch our review) or 7900-class CPU. It isn’t distant from the 265K in Decompression, although dips in Premiere closer to a 245K (read our review).

The 12700K (watch our review) is similar to the 13600K in many of its tests, so after 3 years, it has dropped to subsequent series i5 performance levels. The 245K is regularly right alongside the 12700K. From AMD, the 9700X (read our review) and 7700X are regularly its modern equivalent. The 12600K (watch our review) is most similar to the 9600X or 7600X in many tests, with no nearby modern Intel equivalents. They are all much better than this. We might have to test a 13400 (read our review) or something to see this level.

The 12400 (watch our review) is regularly near the 5600X. In some tests, it is down at 3600 or 2600 (watch our review) levels. The 12100F has no modern neighbors and, in some instances, no suitable comparisons close by. The R5 2600 (watch our review) is regularly the closest comparison for the 12100F.

Intel 12th Generation Gaming Benchmarks

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Stellaris

We’ll start with Stellaris, the space game which we use to test for simulation time rather than framerate. This is still a great benchmark because the results don’t care about resolution or graphics: It is a highly CPU-bound game with real-world implications for time.

First up, our new entry with the best result is the 9800X3D with liquid nitrogen and at 6.2 GHz. Although you could have a friend or family member pour LN2 while you game, it’s not likely -- but we wanted to put it here to show just how insane the CPU is when pushed to the limits.

Snap back to reality, we have Alder Lake: The 12th Gen CPUs land at 36.7 seconds for the 12900K, 37.7 seconds for the 12700KF, 41.2 seconds for the 12600K, and 43.1 seconds for the 12400. Top-to-bottom, this creates a range of 6.4 seconds, or a reduction in simulation time from the 12400 to the 12900K of 15% -- meaning 15% less time to simulate. If you had bought the 12900K for $630 in 2021, then it’s given you about 3 years of performance and has aged into a modern i5 in this test, which really isn’t that bad. The 14600K is adjacent at 36.6 seconds. An in-socket upgrade to a 14900K (read our review) would get you about a 9.5% reduction in simulation time and is probably not worth it for most people. The 9800X3D (without liquid nitrogen) would yield a 30% reduction in simulation time.

The 12700K is slightly better than a 5700X3D, with the 12600K around 5800X (watch our review) and 5600X levels. The 12400 is significantly better than the 12100F at 47 seconds and just behind the 5600X.

Dragon’s Dogma 2

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is up now. In this one, the chart leader is the 9800X3D at 129 FPS AVG, which is an incredible lead over the 7800X3D’s 111 FPS AVG.

The 12900K falls down to a cluster of Intel parts that cap-out around 100 FPS. The 265K is roughly equivalent to the 12900K in averages and lows. The 245K isn’t far behind. 

The 14900K boosts the ceiling to 110 FPS AVG, alongside the 13900K, 14700K, and 13700K that find a 10% higher ceiling. The 5700X3D has functionally identical performance to the 12900K. Anything on this list is a sidegrade for it other than a 9800X3D.

We feel the same about the 12700K: It wouldn’t be worth upgrading by this test alone.

The 12600K and 12400 show more age: Both are still great for framerate and completely playable, but at least a gap to the top is established. Moving to a 9800X3D would boost performance by 46% from the 12600K. An in-socket upgrade might be about 22% by moving to a 13700K

The 12100F is at 71 FPS AVG, which is also remarkably good for such a modern game. The lows are hurting a little more and sometimes get spiky, but overall, we’re impressed by how it has held on. Upgrading to a 13700K in-socket would be a huge upgrade from the 12100F. It would be economical, and might be worth considering.

Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail (1080p)

Final Fantasy 14: Dawntrail is a 2024 entry for us.

The Alder Lake series does OK here from an absolute standpoint, but is far down the charts in a relative sense.

The 12900K and 12700K are between the Ultra 7 265K -- which did horribly in this benchmark -- and the 13600K. The Ultra 200 Series is known to be regressive in this game, with Intel also showing the same behavior. The sad thing is that you’d be going backwards if you didn’t pay attention to benchmarks and bought a 265K. It wouldn’t be a crazy thing to do, either: It’s 3 so-called “generations” newer, yet worse than a 12700K and 12900K, at least in this test. The 12600K wouldn’t even see a huge uplift to it either.

The 13700K and 14700K offer large improvements around 15-18% from Alder Lake, though you’d need a good price to be worth the purchase. The 14900K boosts to 310 FPS AVG, an uplift of 26% over the 12900K.

AMD’s 9800X3D sets the ceiling at 373 FPS AVG, with all the other X3D parts right alongside it. 

Starfield

Starfield is up next. The 12900K hits 124 FPS AVG in our test here, which aligns it with the 13600K and 14600K CPUs, slightly bested by the 5800X3D (watch our review). This goes to show how good the 5800X3D was at launch, especially given the price gap when both the 12900K and 5800X3D were still regularly available new.

The 9800X3D shows room for a 36% improvement in performance from the 12900K. The 285K with ultra-fast, expensive memory in Gear 2 improves by 23% on the 12900K, but the like-for-like comparison has it at 15% ahead.

The 12700K is similar to a 245K -- you’d be downgrading overall by moving to it, aside from efficiency. The 5700X3D (read our review) is also nearby. Upgrading the 12700K to a 14900K would get you about 13% more performance and probably isn’t worth it overall.

The 12600K stands to gain more notably if upgraded in-socket to a 13700K, where it’d gain 26%. The 12400 could be worth considering an in-socket jump to a 14600K (watch our review) or 13700K as well, if cheap enough.

The 12100F is somehow still chugging along, sandwiched between AMD’s 3000-series parts and outperforming the R5 3600 and R7 2700 (watch our review).

Baldur’s Gate 3

Baldur’s Gate 3 used to have the X3D series all in the 120s, but the 9800X3D broke that in a massive way and hit 160 FPS AVG in our particular test case. We validated this in our 9800X3D review and explained why it’s happening.

X3D dominates the entire top quarter of this chart, followed next by the memory-boosted 285K. The prior generation 14900K, 13900K, and 13700K are all within error of each other. Don’t be confused by their ordering: Their performance is identical and within run-to-run variance, which is due to encountering a memory limitation. We can see this from the 285K (read our review) stock results versus the DDR5-8600 results.

The 12900K ran at 96 FPS AVG, or equal to the 265K. The 265K would be an expensive downgrade when looking at the total picture. The 12900K is still doing well enough here that it probably doesn’t make sense to replace except maybe with a 9800X3D.

The 12700K is about tied with a 245K. Like the 12900K, there aren’t many worthy upgrades here. A 13700K, 13900K (watch our review), or 14900K would give about a 15% uplift in our testing.

The 12600K and 12400 are at about 13600K levels of performance. An in-socket upgrade to a 13700K in this chart would yield about 28% improvement from these CPUs. The 12100F had trouble running this test. We might be able to force it to work, but natively, the low performance was bad enough that we consider it disqualifying in our test.

F1 24 - 1080p

F1 24 is up next.

The game scales from 163 FPS AVG up to 464 FPS AVG in our testing. The 12900K starts Alder Lake off down in the range of the i5 CPUs, including the 13600K and 14600K. Inspecting the data, we found that the 12900K had a more variable average FPS than some other CPUs, which we think is due to its core arrangement and Windows 2H24: The range was 310.5 FPS to 316 FPS AVG run-to-run, and upon inspection, it is due to the frametime pacing where we sometimes get a higher throughput with worse pacing and sometimes the opposite.

Overall, it ends up around 13600K levels. We saw this last round as well, just with an older Windows version. The 14900K has a 23% advantage on the 12900K. The 9800X3D runs 49% ahead of the 12900K.

The 12700KF is between the 5800X and 5600X, with the 245K just ahead. Intel’s 12600K lands at 270 FPS AVG, meaning a 13700K upgrade would boost the average by about 34%.

The 12100F still does great here, all things considered, and is just ahead of the 3700X.

Production Benchmarks

On to production benchmarks. For these tests, we’re looking at applications like Blender, Chromium code compile, and more. Users of the i7 and i9 CPUs are more likely to care about the performance here. It’s also one of Intel’s strong points of the past generations.

Blender

Blender 3D rendering is up first for production.

The 12900K did well here. It’s at 11.7 minutes required to complete a single-frame render of the GN intro animation, which has it about tied with the 12C/24T AMD R9 7900 non-X CPU. The 13700K does well with its higher frequency and equal core count to the 12900K. The 14900K has large gains here from moving to a 32-thread configuration, reducing the time required by 27% to 8.5 minutes. That’s about the same we see from the newer 265K, with the 285K doing well in one of its few strong tests and reducing time to 7.1 minutes. That has it at about the 9950X levels of performance.

If you were upgrading for gaming, the 9800X3D is the only option that might universally make sense against the 12900K. But for production, unfortunately, the options wouldn’t necessarily move the needle on gaming performance in a meaningful way despite offering large gains in workstation applications. You’d have to choose.

The 12700KF has the same core count as the 13600K, so the two perform about the same. An upgrade to the 14900K in-socket would be a huge 39% reduction in render time required.

The 12600K is at about levels of the 9600X. The 7800X3D (watch our review) outperforms it, but is better in gaming than production as compared to the non-3D parts like the 7700X. The 9800X3D would at least improve on the 12600K somewhat while giving a big boost to gaming.

As for the 12400 and 12100F, they’re near the bottom. The 12100F struggles with core count, so the 2600 is a little faster. The 12400 is roughly tied with the 3600.

Chromium

In Chromium code compile, the 12900K required 119 minutes to complete the compile. This has it closer to the R9 7900 non-X (watch our review) than anything else. The 13700K improves with its higher frequency and equal core count, with the 14900K giving a compile time reduction of 26% less time. The 285K is also a big step up, though not significantly different from the 14900K.

Intel’s 12600K might see enough benefit from an in-socket upgrade to a 14900K or 14700K (read our review) that it’d be worth considering, especially for the gaming uplift, but only if you’re trying to save on cost by reusing a board and DDR5 RAM. 

The 12100F required 382 minutes, which is still about an hour more time than the R7 2700 and about tied with the R5 2600.

7-Zip Compression

7-Zip compression testing makes the 12900K feel a little older, outperforming the 14600K by just 4.3% (and similar for the 9800X3D). In the very least, upgrading to a 9800X3D for gaming would at least net equal performance in this type of task.

The 14900K offers a 38% increase in MIPS over the 12900K, maybe making it worth considering.

A new build with a 9950X yields about a 46% uplift in this benchmark.

The 12700K is down near the 7700X (watch our review) and 9700X, with the 14700K 48% higher in MIPS.

If you have a 12600K and wanted to stay on Alder Lake, moving to the 12900K improves performance by 48% here, which is pretty massive. 

The 12400 is more similar to a 5600X or 3600, so anything would be an upgrade. The 12100F is at the bottom, falling behind the R5 2600 in a predictable way with its thread deficiency in this test.

7-Zip Decompression

7-Zip decompression shows a lot of scaling with cores, as indicated by the 9950X (read our review) and 7950X. The 12900K still does OK here and bests the 9800X3D on a technicality. The 265K offers an uplift that wouldn’t be worth buying into, with the 285K pushing 30% higher in MIPS to 193K. The 7900X (watch our review) and 13900K offer more meaningful uplifts though, with the 13900K and 14900K benefiting from higher thread count and opening opportunities for upgrades.

The 12700KF is at 245K levels of performance and about tied with a 5800X. The 12600K would see multiples of uplift with some of the newer options at the top of this chart, again including the 14900K and 13900K. The 12100F isn’t comparable to anything here, with the 12400 similar to an R5 2600.

Adobe Premiere

Adobe testing is next with the Puget Suite.

Back with the Alder Lake launch, we stuck with Intel for our Premiere editing systems since it was the best opportunity at that time.

Today, the part still does pretty well in Premiere. Actually, we still use its direct descendants in our main editing machines, including 13700Ks and various i9s. The 12900K scored 9948 points in aggregate, which has it between the 9800X3D and 7900X. The 14900K wouldn’t boost it much, only 11% here. The 285K scores a rare victory in this one, but again wouldn’t be a huge move if you’re already on a 12900K. It might make more sense for a new build.

The 12700KF could be kept relevant a little longer with a bump to a 14700K and still be a top scorer on the chart with modern memory. The same goes for the 12600K and 12400.

The 12100F at least outdoes the 2600, but that’s it.

Adobe Photoshop

Adobe Photoshop is last.

This one is a bloodbath compared to many years ago, with Adobe updates and AMD architecture changes benefiting AMD.

The 12900K is in the lower half of the chart and surrounded by i5 CPUs, with the 12600K near AMD’s 5800X. The 12100F at least does comparatively better here and outranks the R5 3600.

Overall, almost anything is an upgrade over Alder Lake in this test.

Conclusion

Grab a GN15 All-Over Print Component Mouse Mat for a high-quality mousing surface that'll fit your keyboard & mouse. These mouse mats use a high-quality yellow rubber underside, a blue stitched border for fray resistance, and are covered in PC parts. This is the best way to support our work and keeps us ad-free to support consumer-first reviews!

Wrapping things up, the 12th Gen CPUs are still pretty good. 

People commonly ask us when they should buy or wait. If you’re on a 12th Gen CPU, we’ll break it down like this: Ask yourself if you’re happy with your PC right now. If you’re not actively annoyed by your computer’s performance, then you can just keep using it. If, however, the performance is bad or you just want to build a PC because it’s fun, then there are options here. 

One of the options is for an in-socket upgrade, to which there are caveats, which we’ll discuss below. Another option is to build a new system.  

For the in-socket option, the 13th and 14th series would be potential drop-in upgrades. The lower down the stack 12th Gen CPU you have, like the 12400F (read our review) or 12600K, the more meaningful it would be to do this. 

For this to work, you need to make sure your motherboard with a 12th Gen CPU has the newer CPUs on its compatibility list. You should be able to find this on the manufacturer’s website. You would also need to update the BIOS. If you’re upgrading from something like a 12100F to a 13900K, you’d want to make sure that your board has a good enough VRM to handle the additional heat and power. Likewise, it’s ideally an unlocked board for more feature support.

We tested on DDR5 here with like-for-like memory between the platforms. You could have used DDR4 with 12th Gen also. DDR4 could be a limiting factor, so if you have to upgrade your RAM and motherboard, you may as well go with a fully new build from AMD instead (if building a gaming PC), like a 9800X3D or similar.

And finally, used CPUs might be a bit of a landmine situation, unfortunately. Intel’s 13th and 14th Gen woes are detailed in other stories we’ve published, but one potential problem is that used CPUs could have instability issues. You’ll want to be careful when buying used. This is unfortunate, because CPUs have historically been pretty bullet-proof -- especially Intel’s -- and have been a great used option to save a quick $100 on an in-socket upgrade.

The price of new 13th and 14th series have dropped in price, which makes something like a 13700K not a bad option, especially if you’re on a lower tier 12th series part. 

Overall, objectively speaking, Intel’s 12th CPUs (for the most part) are still great gaming parts. They’re not at the top of the charts anymore, but that’s OK.


Intel Unbends Its CPUs: 285K RL-ILM vs. Standard ILM Laser, Pressure, & Thermal Benchmarks

26 décembre 2024 à 22:11
Intel Unbends Its CPUs: 285K RL-ILM vs. Standard ILM Laser, Pressure, & Thermal Benchmarksjimmy_thang December 26, 2024

We take an in-depth look into Intel’s new Reduced Load ILM by putting it under a laser scanner, specialized pressure scanning, and more

The Highlights

  • Intel’s new Reduced Load ILM (RL-ILM) helps unbend its CPUs
  • Despite offering improvements, the new and better ILM is optional
  • The RL-ILM is an improvement in both the curvature of the IHS and substrate and of the temperature in our testing

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

Intel is finally trying to unbend its CPUs, despite having to be on a bender to buy a $630 285K right now. Today, we’re using our laser scanner to look at the deflection in the CPU heat spreader from the different loading mechanisms, including these scans of the 285K (read our review) and 245K with different coolers installed. Today’s testing also includes specialized pressure scanning to produce pseudocolor images of pressure distribution across the IHS surface, very brief thermal testing to look at the differences with Noctua’s LBC (Low Base Convexity) flat coldplate, and we’ll look at the mechanical aspects.

Editor's note: This was originally published on November 4, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing, Host

Mike Gaglione

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

3D animation, Camera

Andrew Coleman

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


Unfortunately, Intel’s new and better ILM is optional. It didn’t force motherboard manufacturers to use it, so they can still cut corners if they want to save a few pennies. The new ILM is called the RL-ILM, or Reduced Load ILM, with the old one being referred to as the “Standard” ILM (indicating an assumption of it being the default). Our Z890 Hero ships with the RL-ILM, as do most high-end boards, so we used it as a test platform to swap to other official LGA-1851 ILMs for comparison.

Let’s get into it.

Differences

We’ll get some basic education in and go over the differences:

CPU sockets are one part mechanical and one part electrical. Intel uses what is called an Independent Loading Mechanism for its socket. Some people include the ILM when referring to the socket. On a technicality, the literal socket is the Land Grid Array with the carrier that actually holds the CPU. The loading mechanism is the mechanical part of the socket.

Intel is shipping 2 types of ILM, RL-ILM and Standard, and it is using at least 3 different suppliers that we’re aware of to manufacture these. Our Z890 Hero came with an RL-ILM by Lotes, which is a long-time supplier of ILMs. We also have the same-brand ILM of the Standard variant, plus the two other suppliers you’ll find on boards.

RL-ILM vs. Standard ILM

Here’s a CAD render of the socket. The standard ILM has an angle that increases the force application along the edges of the CPU. That’s the real difference here. This is what causes the depression we’ve seen in previous 3D laser scans we performed. These scans are from our past content: You can see how the ILM causes significant bending and forms a central concavity with the heat spreader, leading flatter cooler coldplates to be worse on Intel despite being better on AMD. You can learn more about that in our previous coverage here and here

Back to the CAD model, the RL-ILM is basically just flat. This is the biggest change, as the force should be reduced. This is also why Intel requires a higher force heatsink to be installed in order to ensure contact.

The RL-ILM also has one other difference: There’s an additional adhesive spacer on the underside, which can be thought of as similar to the washer mod that Noctua now ships with its NH-D15 G2 coolers as an option. The additional spacer goes underneath the existing black spacer, meaning that the ILM "leg" component probably was taken from existing Standard ILM stock, then retrofitted with effectively a sticker.

3D Animation

In our original Thermal Grizzly contact frame benchmark, we showed how the ILM clamp appeared to apply very slightly higher pressure to one side of the socket. This was exaggerated by the fact that the ILM has some play in it, where it can shift side-to-side and be repositioned and we saw that still happens on the RL-ILM. 

Here’s our 3D render of the standard ILM: With the CPU dropped into the socket, the standard ILM uses a hook that’s attached to the lever to centrally press down on the ILM lid that clamps directly to the CPU IHS. With the lever fully down and secured, the ILM is now secured at 3 points: 2 on the bottom of the ILM and 1 at the top. All of this is the same on the new RL-ILM. 

As for the CPU, the ILM has two wings that press down on the IHS at the borders, and with that curvature we showed in the CAD model, the force application at these points is high enough that a highly precise gauge can show how light is able to shine through despite the CPU being relatively flat when unclamped and looking flat to the eye.

We’ll refer you to our Thermal Grizzly Contact Frame benchmark from 2022 to learn more about this older style of ILM.

For the new version, clamping the CPU in the socket functions mechanically identically for the end user, with the lever pulling down to hook under a securing latch and clamp the ILM at 3 points, with 2 main contact points at the wings of the IHS. However, the lack of a bend in the ILM reduces the load. Intel still has to keep the force high enough that the CPU’s pads make contact with the socket pins, but has to be careful that it’s the right amount.

Too much or too little force can cause boot issues and high clock memory stability.

And that’s really it for these ILMs.

Pressure Scans

Noctua just got done spending literal years developing its new NH-D15 G2 and shipped it with 3 different coldplates, which makes it a unique candidate for pressure testing. 

For pressure testing, we take the different ILMs and apply a special pressure paper between the CPU and the coldplate. We then take that and scan it in with a specialized pressure scanner to create pseudocolor images of the pressure distribution.

Pressure Scan Noctua Results - HBC on RL-ILM vs. Standard

Here are the results for the two ILM types with the HBC cooler.

The new Reduced Load ILM with the high base convexity Noctua coldplate yielded low pressure at the outer edges, but especially toward the top of the board near the VRM and EPS12V cables. The pressure centrally remained high; however, because the CPU should be flatter with this ILM, the Noctua cooler ends up with less evenly distributed pressure because it’s designed for a different scenario.

The standard ILM with HBC cooler scans reinforce this: The HBC cooler ends up with more evenly distributed pressure at the top and bottom edges of the CPU IHS.

Pressure Scan Noctua Results - HBC, LBC, Standard

And here’s only the RL-ILM with the 3 Noctua cooler cold plates.

The RL-ILM pressure distribution was the most evenly distributed with the standard and LBC solutions. The two are mostly indistinguishable for distribution, although the precise pressure centrally will influence the results in thermal testing.

The LBC cooler had slight gaps at the left and right edges, but consistently square distribution at the top and bottom corners, with good pressure across the entire center. The standard cooler had less consistent pressure at the top and bottom edges and similar gaps to LBC at the edges. Ultimately though, these two basically look the same for contact.

Buy a GN 4-Pack of PC-themed 3D Coasters! These high-quality, durable, flexible coasters ship in a pack of 4, each with a fully custom design made by GN's team. You'll get a motherboard-themed coaster with debug display & reset buttons, a SATA SSD with to-scale connectors, RAM sticks, and a GN logo. These fund our web work! Buy here.

Laser Scan: Noctua Coldplates

Our Noctua NH-D15 G2 review went into depth with laser scans of the cooler’s coldplates, and that hasn’t changed. We’re showing the LBC, Standard, and HBC scans again briefly here just to help recap the impact because when we’re looking at pressure and how it is affected by the ILM, the cold plate is a part of that equation. 

And now we’ll scan the new Intel CPUs to see how their shape matches the pressure scans we saw earlier. 

285K & 245K Unsocketed Laser Scan

Here’s a look at the plain Intel 285K when it’s just flat in the laser scanner. The CPU isn’t in a socket at all here, so this is as simple as it gets. Even in our 2D screenshots of the 3D scan, we can see the letters -- the CPU IHS is so flat that the very slight indentation for the text is visible.

The IHS itself has a few higher points, one just off-center, one along the right edge when oriented in a legible orientation, and one just off the left edge of the CPU.

Magnifying it 100x, that coloration grows to form just a few high points. Overall, it’s flat, but at high magnification, some small deviations appear. One thing that is clear though is that there is no substrate curvature, which makes sense since it hasn’t been socketed.

Let’s create a grid with the 285K and add the 245K to it. The 245K (read our review) follows a similar pattern: Centrally, it’s a little higher, then just off-center right it’s also slightly higher at 1x. Adding 100x to the grid, there’s a similar pattern as with the 285K.

Finally, we added our unsocketed 12900KS from the golden sample coldplate story. It’s still flat when unsocketed, but the difference in IHS design is also slightly showing through.

Socketed Testing

And now, we’re going to throw this Z890 Hero with the new ILM into the scanner and socket the CPUs in it. We obtained this package of ILMs to test. The ASUS board uses the Lotes RL-ILM, so we’ll start with that one.

Standard vs. Low Pressure Socket - 3D

Here’s a one-to-one 3D visualization in Blender taking STL files from our laser scanner, showing the 285K with the standard ILM first. As usual, 1x magnification doesn’t show much, but bringing that to 100x quickly shows a deep concavity centrally, just like we saw with LGA 1700 CPUs.

Switching over to the new reduced load socket, we can see that the 1x to 100x magnification shows less of a pronounced curvature of the IHS itself. It’s still curved, but much less, with the CPU maintaining a more consistent height instead.

Socket Comparison - Grid (285K)

Here’s a grid comparison of the different ILMs on the same motherboard, tested with the same CPU -- starting with the 285K.

You can see that the Standard ILM at 100x magnification shows a huge deflection centrally, as we’ve seen before, with higher pressure on the far ends of the mechanism. While we can sort of see the slight ridgeline down the middle of the CPU, the bigger issue is how deeply it indents.

The reduced load socket is significantly flatter, with less of a central deflection. The ridgeline in the CPU IHS becomes more pronounced in the graphic because it is more consistently the highest thing in the image. Remember that this is at 100x magnification, so the differences are exaggerated intentionally.

Socket Comparison - Grid (245K)

Unveiling the 245K results in the grid, we see the same patterns: The standard ILM deeply indents the CPU centrally, deflecting and deforming it in a way that coldplates with matching convexity will cool it the best. The reduced load socket is flatter and more consistent, though is still slightly deflected centrally.

Laser Scan: ASUS Cooler

We need a laser scan of the cooler coldplate before moving to the pressure maps, as the cooler and IHS alike contribute to the pressure distribution. 

This laser scan shows the coldplate of the ASUS Ryujin liquid cooler, which is what Intel sent with its CPUs to reviewers. Other coolers would fit, but we wanted to test what Intel officially endorsed.

At a 1x scale, the ASUS Ryujin coldplate looks relatively flat, but still shows a protrusion dead-center, gradually reducing height towards the outer edges. When we did our in-depth testing on Intel performance with varying custom-made coldplates from Scythe, we found that this pattern often did well for Intel.

Scaling it 100x, we get this almost comical tower protruding from the coldplate. This helps us see the steep slope as ASUS applies massive pressure dead-center with its coldplate design. This is sort of a hamfisted approach and version of what Noctua did more precisely with the D15 G2 for LGA 1700, except Noctua had more nuance in the exact shape of the convexity, which will better align with the concavity in LGA 1700 CPU heat spreaders previously. It’s similar to what we saw in the $60 Thermalright liquid cooler, which managed to brute force its way in performance thanks to similar protrusions.

Pressure Testing Results

Time to look at some pressure scans of the ASUS cooler with the new Intel ILMs.

These images show a new pressure scan of our 14900KF with the ASUS Ryujin cooler and the old (or “standard”) ILM. In this scan, you can see the 14900KF has narrowing pressure on the left and right sides, with most of its pressure centered. That’s where it should be, and most of that is thanks to the comically protruding ASUS coldplate, but fuller coverage is ideal. The older IHS also is a little bit different shape than the new one. The second column represents the pre-installed reduced load ILM using the 285K. Looking at the third column, adding the standard ILM with the 285K, doesn’t look too different. The pressure profile appears to be distributed taller and narrower. There’s still some of that slimming effect going on when we get to the left and right sides but not nearly as pronounced as with the last gen IHS design and ILM. 

Ultimately, what we see is that ASUS’ older brute force approach gets a better pressure distribution on the prior LGA 1700 socket than on the new ARL 285K socket, which is thanks to the massive central protrusion. This is the approach Thermalright took with its $50-$60 liquid coolers previously as well. It’s relatively hamfisted, but works, whereas the more carefully shaped approach of air coolers like the D15 G2 and the Scythe FUMA 3 are technically a better pressure match; now, that said, a 360mm liquid cooler is still “better” (with regard to capability) overall, and it will cool better, but the Ryujin could improve with more purposeful coldplate shaping.

Thermal Test Setup

Thermal testing is up now. Full transparency that we’re keeping this really simple this time, mostly because it doesn’t take much testing to verify if there’s a difference at all.

We’re only running the comparison thermals with one cooler this time. The ASUS cooler is so heavily deflected that we’re not sure the comparison would be that useful, so instead, we approached it with what should be a worst case scenario: The Noctua NH-D15 G2 LBC, or low base convexity, which is the flattest of Noctua’s options. In theory, this should be the worst on the more deflected standard ILM+IHS combination and the best on the flatter IHS from the RL-ILM.

Other coolers could have more or less impact. Coolers with higher force application centrally and with more convexity would continue to compensate for design problems of the standard ILM, but we want to just run a quick evaluation on one of the uncompensated scenarios.

We are also not testing anything below the minimum spec Intel declares for the socket, which is a 35 lb. force from the cooler. Anything high-end that’d be paired with the current CPUs will meet or exceed this requirement anyway.

Thermal Results

Here are the results from a simple A/B test. For this testing, we did two full mounts and at least 3 passes to average the numbers. This allowed us to check for variance mount-to-mount. All our other CPU cooler standards and methodologies apply, like manually spreading paste, controlling the fan speeds, and fixing the voltages and frequency. We disabled all power and thermal limits and set a fixed voltage with fixed frequencies. We have a known power draw down the EPS12V and 24-pin ATX12V through the 4 phases that it has (without PCIe slot power). That allows us to get these numbers.

The result was 61.8 degrees delta T over ambient for average P-core temperature with the standard ILM and 59.6 dT with the RL-ILM, or the improved one, meaning about a 2.2-degree reduction when accounting for  ambient. Without the deltas, we were running the 285K in the 80s to low 90s because we disabled all TVB 70-degree throttle controls. Running the CPU hotter allows us to see more of a gap between the results. A CPU consuming less power with a stronger cooler would likely not show as big a gap.

Checking briefly with Der8auer as a peer review, we learned our results are roughly in-line with his own. The differences are aligned with cooler and heat load differences.

We observed a slightly lower core-to-core delta with the new ILM, but it was within error. The AVG all-core temperatures were not significantly different from the P-core temperatures in this one due to the proximity of the P-cores to E-cores in this architecture (combined with our adjustments in BIOS). 

So, as short as possible, the RL-ILM is about 2.2 degrees better at this heat load with this cooler.

Tutorial to Remove and install the ILM

Before we move to the conclusion, in case you buy a motherboard with a standard ILM and want to move from the high pressure standard one to the low-pressure RL-ILM, we’ll walk you through how to do that. 

If you are going to swap the socket, we recommend sticking with the same brand for the replacement if possible. In our case, we used Lotes. 

To begin, we recommend starting with the CPU installed to protect the pins underneath to mitigate the risk of dropping, say, a loose screw down into the socket. 

From there, unscrew the 4 screws. We used a regular T20 Torx screwdriver. 

Removing the screws frees the top and bottom pieces of the socket. It also frees the backplate. When you’re installing the backplate, it’s important to get the orientation right and to ensure that the plastic sticker side is touching the bottom of the motherboard and not the exposed metal side. The backplate also features a notch that aligns with the triangle that’s on the corner of the CPU.   

We found that it’s easier to install the lever arm piece first with its 2 screws. Once that’s in place, it’s time to secure the other side with its 2 screws. You don’t need a lot of torque for the screws. We recommend that you tighten them in a star pattern to evenly distribute pressure.  

Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

We regularly see people online saying that some cooler is 3 degrees lower than some other cooler, so just a reminder here on how all of this works: That 2.2 degrees is specifically at the power load we tested and with the cooler we used, under the conditions we employed. It will be higher or lower based on how these parameters change.

As an example, we did one round of tests with all the Intel throttle controls still enabled and saw less than 1-degree of difference -- but that’s because it was just throttling itself to regulate the temperature.

The new RL-ILM is definitely an objective improvement in both the curvature of the IHS and substrate and of the temperature in our brief testing. The pressure distribution depends on the cooler more than anything and it isn’t always clearly better, but the thermal result tells us that the net result is positive.

Frustratingly, this is optional. Intel is not at a stage where it should be making clear, simple, easy improvements “optional” for motherboard vendors. 

Although we don’t want Intel or AMD to force certain lock-downs, like taking away overclocking features, we do think both companies should enforce a default or baseline configuration that is in the best interests of the consumer, with the option for the consumer to tweak as their motherboard allows once exiting default settings.

In this situation, we do think Intel should just bite the bullet and force the better solution. It may be a situation where board partners had already purchased millions of these older mechanisms. Regardless, Intel has at least improved its mechanism. It is technically slightly more expensive than the original ILM, but since we’re talking pennies, we’d like to see this forced in the next generation as the standard ILM since it is just better. Intel needs to stop taking a soft-handed approach to its partners and taking the small victories when it can get them.

This doesn’t kill the contact frame market, though: That’ll still provide uplift, as the RL-ILM remains a mid-step improvement without going full flat like the prior contact frames we’ve tested.

That’s it for this one. We probably won’t do a ton of Arrow Lake follow-up testing since it doesn’t make any sense to buy right now, but we may explore a few other features.


Best CPU Coolers We've Tested (2024): Thermals, Noise Levels, & Value

17 décembre 2024 à 22:59
Best CPU Coolers We've Tested (2024): Thermals, Noise Levels, & Valuejimmy_thang December 17, 2024

Our round-up includes the best CPU coolers for value, budget, noise-normalized thermals in both air and liquid categories, best mechanical design, and best overall.

The Highlights

  • Best Overall CPU Cooler of 2024: ID-Cooling A720
  • Best Value CPU Cooler: Thermalright Frozen Prism
  • Best Budget CPU Cooler: ID-Cooling SE-214-XT
  • Best Mechanical Design CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 G2

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN Soldering & Project Mat for a high-quality work surface with extreme heat resistance. These purchases directly fund our operation, including our build-out of the hemi-anechoic chamber for our acoustic testing! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

Today, we’re rounding-up some of the best CPU coolers that we’ve tested in recent years, including air and liquid coolers.

This is a continuation of our favorite series each year, where we get to have some fun comparing only the best-of-the-best products we looked at and avoid the usual disappointments. But there was some huge news this year: DeepCool got banned and is now gone from the US market. With that, a power vacuum has formed among cooler manufacturers, and Thermalright’s former nemesis has been replaced with Arctic and ID Cooling aggressively trying to fill it. We can’t say that was on our bingo card.

Editor's note: This was originally published on December 15, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Camera

Andrew Coleman

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


These tests will include results from our new 250W and 200W Intel heat loads in addition to our 200W and 123W AMD heat loads. The categories this year are for Best Overall CPU Cooler, Best Budget CPU Cooler, Best Value CPU Cooler, Best Noise-Normalized Thermals, and Best Mechanical Design. Let’s get started.

Setting Expectations

These Best Of articles are intended to get newcomers up to speed quickly, so we won’t go into the same crazy depth we normally do for the standalone reviews. Each of the coolers that has a review will be linked in the description below so that you can find the full details if you want them, including all the 3D laser scanning, pressure maps, and downsides. This article will be more of a flyover.

We’re testing both air and liquid coolers for this one. We’ve added a lot of coolers to the charts that aren’t in our prior reviews, specifically tested for this round-up, so there’s new data mixed with old in here.

Additionally, keep in mind that our noise testing methodology changes between charts. For the AMD platform, we use our old room-scale noise testing.

For our Intel platform we just added, we’re testing in our hemi-anechoic chamber with a lower threshold of 25dBA normalization in a noise floor around 14 dBA.

As always, for cooler round-ups, we can only discuss coolers we’ve directly had hands-on time with. There are hundreds of coolers out there. We have a pretty good cross-section of the big options, but if you don’t see exactly what you’re looking for, we’d encourage you to check other content and expand your research.

You can find the full charts on our CPU coolers Mega Charts page. As a reminder, gamersnexus.net is a free website that is totally free from third-party ads and funded by the audience. We just got done running another 18 cooler tests on a 250W and 200W Intel platform with noise-normalized results in our hemi-anechoic chamber.

That’ll set us up. If you want to check out our Best CPUs and Best Cases round-ups, those are already live. All the review links and product links are in the description. Let’s get into it.

Overview: Best CPU Coolers of 2024

CategoryCPU CoolerReview
Best Overall CPU Cooler 2024ID Cooling A720
on Amazon
Best Value CPU CoolerThermalright Frozen Prism
on Amazon
on Newegg
Thermalright Strikes Again: $56.90 360mm Liquid Cooler | Frozen Prism Review
Best Budget CPU CoolerID-Cooling SE-214-XT
on Amazon
Best Thermals (Noise-Normalized) CPU CoolerLiquid Freezer III
on Amazon
on Newegg
Noctua NH-D15 G2
on Amazon
on Newegg
The New Best: Arctic Liquid Freezer III 360 & 280 CPU Cooler Review & Benchmarks

Noctua NH-D15 G2 Review & Benchmarks, HBC & LBC Comparison, & Best CPU Coolers
Best Mechanical Design CPU CoolerNoctua NH-D15 G2
on Amazon
on Newegg
Noctua NH-D15 G2 Review & Benchmarks, HBC & LBC Comparison, & Best CPU Coolers

Best Overall CPU Cooler: ID Cooling A720

Amazon

Runner-Up: Arctic Freezer 36

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

Up first, our category for Best Overall CPU cooler this year. This category requires the pricing to be competitive, as it considers the value, the build quality and assembly features, ease-of-installation features, the thermal and acoustic performance, and everything else. Last year, we gave this to the Peerless Assassin 120, which is definitely a GOAT and remains one. This year, we’re giving it to two Thermalright competitors, depending on CPU: Overall, the ID-Cooling A720 gets the award this year. For our Intel bench specifically, we’re giving a tied rank award to the Arctic Freezer 36

Let’s start with the Intel results and the Freezer 36, since that one is isolated as a winner to just this bench.

The most heavily weighted element in favor of the Freezer 36 (read our review) is its price. Arctic said it’d increase the price within just months of launch, but seemingly never did. Even today, the Black model that we tested is about $28 -- an incredible value considering its performance, at least on our Intel bench, and fiercely competitive with the Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 that won our award last year.

Our new Intel 250W noise-normalized charts also include the Peerless Assassin 140, which was eliminated because we discovered quality control issues and variance between our two units that resulted in a 2-degree spread of results, which is actually huge. Unfortunately, one of the Assassin 140 units we have just doesn’t have a good pressure scan or laser scan, while the other is fine. We were able to prove the source of the difference was a combination of the coldplate and mounting hardware.

You can see the two entries for the PA140 here. It’s not because the white model is better, but because the other unit has contact issues.

Anyway, that eliminates the new PA140 even if only the best entry were here. Of the remaining coolers, the Freezer 36 is the best performer after Noctua’s D15 G2 HBC. This is impressive with the Freezer 36’s $28 price. The G2, on the other hand, is $150. Some of this comes from Arctic’s mandate of a contact frame for the Intel version of its Freezer 36, but considering that’s all included in the price, this is a strong positioning. 

One other note here: The D15 2023 model we have here performs a little better than our original D15 from a decade ago, which is a result of minor tweaks or refinement in manufacturing processes along the way. We talked about this in the G2 review. If you’re on an older D15 from around when it launched, it’s likely it is marginally different in performance today.

On to the A720: In our Mega Charts for 200W testing previously, the Freezer 36 fell behind compared to its Intel results with the frame. This reveals our choice that’s tied for the category: The A720, which was also among the top two performers for Intel and is the best performer behind the D15 G2 (read our review) in this 200W, AMD noise-normalized test.

The combined chart-topping performance in both our AMD and Intel test benches is what leads the A720 to the Best Overall rank, with its relatively high build quality and moderate price securing the position. 

At $55, with occasional drops to $50, it’s competitive with the best (like the $150 G2) and manages a 55.2 degree over ambient result on our 200W AMD bench. This improves on the GOATed Peerless Assassin by 1-degree, which does have a little bit of an advantage in price. 

The Intel result improved on the Peerless Assassin 120 (read our review) by 1.6 degrees.

We recently tested the Phantom Spirit as well, but it didn’t outperform our Peerless Assassin 120. The Phantom Spirit EVO has a slightly smaller tower than the Assassin and also has a disadvantage with noisier fans, found in our chamber testing. The Spirit’s fan RPM is higher than the Assassin, but that doesn’t matter when normalizing for noise.

Overall, for the A720, we think it has surprisingly good build quality. The fans are well-fitted to the cooler, with the central fan sinking to benefit VRM cooling as well. We like the simplicity of the black model that we have. The mounting solution is overall straight-forward and the bulked-up 7-heatpipe design helps with coverage across the IHS. The cap plates are a nice touch without overdoing the branding. The central fan also levels-out nicely with the top plates and each fan has rubber bumpers on the corners to reduce vibration, which benefitted it in noise normalizing. Its biggest downside is size, where the 163mm height makes it about 6mm taller than a Peerless Assassin 120. This could limit some cases.

We think ID Cooling and Thermalright both are worth seriously paying attention to in 2025, especially with DeepCool’s disappearance from the US and the Freezer 36 is also worth considering if you happen to go Intel.

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Best Value CPU Cooler: Thermalright Frozen Prism

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

Our Best Value award this year goes to the Thermalright Frozen Prism. Value is judged by a combination of performance for the price, not just pure price. We have a Best Budget category as well for what is simply one of the best, cheap coolers.

Thermalright’s Frozen Prism is an enigma: It’s $52.71 at the time of this writing. This is somehow even cheaper than when we reviewed it. It’s cheap enough that we remain skeptical of whether it may have some sort of defect down the line. In some ways, it seems too good to be true. Concerns we have might involve gunk build-up, but we have no evidence of any such issues at this time. What we do have evidence of is impressive performance: The Frozen Prism (read our review) was a competitive liquid cooler in our testing, brute-forcing much of its performance with a hugely protruding copper coldplate, almost comically so. Our laser scans made this protrusion even more clear, with our pressure maps showing how the cooler leverages the design to brute-force high pressure dead-center, which is where the silicon often sits. 

Even on AMD, which has less-centered silicon than Intel’s prior monolithic CPUs, the pressure spreads wide enough that it’ll catch everything.

In our 200W heat load thermal benchmarks from the review, the Frozen Prism 360 ran at 49.7 degrees Celsius over ambient when noise-normalized, whereas the best liquid cooler we’d tested at the time, the Liquid Freezer III, ran at 46.7 degrees Celsius over ambient. That’s a big difference. At the same time, achieving such close performance at under $60 was previously unheard of.

In our prior test bench configuration for Intel, using a 250W heat load on the 12900KS, the Thermalright Frozen Prism was a chart-topper when at 100% fan speeds. If you look at the 53.2dBA noise levels though, it was incredibly inefficient compared to the Liquid Freezer III 360, which ran at 39.8dBA. This is over a 2x increase in perceived noise to the human ear for the Frozen Prism, yet it drops only a couple degrees. That’s an inefficient trade-off, and although fan speed could be lowered to compensate for noise, it’s clear the cooler isn’t some mastery of thermal and acoustic engineering.

What the Frozen Prism actually is, though, is a mastery of cost engineering. 

The Frozen Prism doesn’t have any real quality-of-life features to speak of or anything abnormal. It delivers what it promises, which is cheap cooling. Our only criticism of the physical construction, beyond some cheaper plastic-y feel of some parts, was the stiffer tubing. This can be worked around.

Thermalright has become known for flooding the market with countless options, to the point where it’s overwhelming even for its own staff to remember them all at tradeshows. The company is saturating listings and driving prices down, which is ultra-competitive and in some ways good for consumers. It’s also pretty cutthroat, and is why we now have name-brand coolers also dropping in price. Following-up its success with the Peerless Assassin 120 in years past, Thermalright is looking for a repeat in liquid. We’ll see how the Prism ages, but so far, it’s competitive, especially in thermals. That’s why the Thermalright Frozen Prism 360 gets our best value award.

Best Budget CPU Cooler: ID-Cooling SE-214-XT

Amazon

The next award is in the same vein, but simpler: Our Best Budget award goes to the ID-Cooling SE-214-XT ARGB and it’s challenging the GOAT in Thermalright. ID-Cooling is vying for Thermalright’s strategy. Last year, we praised it for its overall value -- though it has been shifted into the pure budget category with the Frozen Prism’s addition to our charts.

The SE-214-XT ARGB has dropped in price and is now somehow $15.19 at the time of writing. We normally wouldn’t cite the pennies, but when 19 cents is over 1% of the total price, it suddenly becomes relevant. The SE-214XT ARGB is a simple, 4-heatpipe cooler that revives the approach of the old Hyper 212. It’s dirt cheap, its quality is flimsy, its plastics feel like they’re from McDonald’s toys, its coldplate is spartan, and yet somehow, the thing can handle moderate heat loads. It won’t handle a 250W CPU in our test suite with any level of satisfaction, but it’s good enough for cheaper and lower power CPUs with users on more extreme budgets. This would also be a good consideration if you’re buying a used CPU to save money and need something that ticks the “good enough” box.

In our 123W heat load on AM4 last round, the ID Cooling SE-214-XT ARGB held 58 degrees delta T over ambient when at 37.9 dBA, which had it more noise efficient for the result than the lower-ranked Hyper 212 RGB cooler. It was bordering on Noctua’s aged NH-U12S (watch our review). The Thermalright Assassin Spirit (watch our review) ran at the same noise levels and a little more than 1 degree cooler and is likewise a cheap cooler, but at $16.79, somehow, and this is really weird to say, it’s almost 11% more expensive. What a bizarre world of coolers we’re in.

In our 14900KF 200W heat load and with 100% fan speeds, tested instead in our hemi-anechoic chamber that purchases from the store help fund, we landed at 60.6 degrees Celsius delta T. That had the SE-214-XT ARGB as the worst performer on the chart, but still somehow capable of holding a stable operating temperature. In other words, it’s fine. The next lowest performer is the Scythe FUMA 3 (watch our review) with its combination of two fans, a massive 9 degree improvement.

Our 25dBA noise-normalized testing still has it at the bottom of the charts for this heat load, but even at this slightly reduced speed, it’s still a capable performer.

We wouldn’t call the SE-214-XT “good,” but we do think it’s one of the best in class at its seemingly impossibly cheap price, considering it also has to sit in freight to ship to wherever it’s sold. If you need a cooler to just get a system going, this is a good value. ID Cooling seems poised to challenge Thermalright in the future.

Best Thermals (Noise-Normalized) CPU Cooler: Liquid Freezer III, D15 G2

Liquid Freezer III original review | Newegg | Amazon

D15 G2 original review | Newegg | Amazon

Runner-Up: ID-Cooling Frozn A720

Amazon

This is for the Best Noise-Normalized Thermals, and because we have both liquid and air coolers in the charts for this round-up, we’re assigning the award to one liquid cooler and one air cooler.

The Arctic Liquid Freezer III firmly receives the Best Noise-Normalized thermals award both overall and for liquid, but air can’t be expected to compete at the same level of liquid and large radiators (especially when dropping fan RPM). For air coolers, the award goes to the NH-D15 G2 HBC for Intel (or LBC for AMD), with a runner-up award for ID-Cooling’s Frozn A720. We’ve listed the latter because it’s $100 cheaper than the NH-D15 G2.

This is a thermal category, so we’ll focus on charts.

Starting with the Liquid Freezer III (read our review): Arctic’s revision of its Liquid Freezer II tried a number of new things, like shipping a mandatory contact frame with its Intel variation. This complicates matters and isn’t always for the best. 

We found that Arctic’s contact frame was worse than other options on the market, but its cooler design was such that other options couldn’t be used instead. It was still better than Intel’s ILM, though.

For thermals, the Liquid Freezer III is just as impressive as its predecessor, and its price is similarly competitive. In 200W testing on AMD with our older noise-normalized approach, the Liquid Freezer III was the clear chart topper when we limited the pump speed to 70% (which helped reduce noise and allowed higher fan RPM instead). Running the pump at 100% and sacrificing some of that noise budget for it, it was still tied for second place, behind only itself and matched with a cooler that’s now banned in the US. The next closest non-Arctic option is the Trinity Performance from Lian Li, which is specifically performance-focused in its design. 

In our Intel 250W heat load thermals on a 14900KF (read our review), also noise-normalized, the Liquid Freezer III with its mandatory frame climbs to the top of the chart. It’s ahead of the Frozen Prism by enough to not be margin of error or test variance. It’s also ahead of the Light Loop 360 and predictably ahead of all the air coolers.

The Liquid Freezer III remains a top recommendation of ours, though we do find its contact frame solution frustrating for Intel. On AMD, it’s much simpler.

Moving to the air coolers, the victor of the noise-normalized category on pure performance is the Noctua NH-D15 G2 HBC for our Intel 250W bench or LBC for AMD. Previously, we found that the G2 HBC outperformed even its closest competitor, the A720, by a couple degrees. This gap alone is impressive, as finding more than single-degree differences between air coolers is rare. Noctua’s work on the high base convexity cooler really worked for Intel -- but it’s also the recipient of our Best Mechanical Design category, so we’ll save that discussion.

On AMD 200W testing when noise-normalized, we also found Noctua’s D15 G2 LBC (or its flatter model) to be the current best noise-normalized air cooler result, behind only a huge stack of liquid coolers.

As some honorable mentions for runners-up here, since most are in the market for something cheaper, the ID Cooling Frozn A720 Black takes a clean second place in both our Intel and AMD CPU cooler testing. The Frozn A720 well balanced between the 2 platforms. It’s a relatively large tower that may have some clearance issues in some cases, but its $56 price-point makes it one of the more affordable, competitive coolers, and it’s $100 below the D15 G2.

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Best Mechanical Design CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 G2

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

The next award is for Best Mechanical Design. This covers the total execution of every physical feature of the cooler: Pressure distribution, laser scans, ease-of-installation features, a highly usable design, aesthetics, and the cooling itself. This year, we can easily give it to the Noctua NH-D15 G2. Like last year’s winner for this category, which was the Assassin IV, Noctua’s NH-D15 G2 isn’t a good value cooler (it’s $150, which is insane for an air cooler) -- but this category isn’t for value. We can still appreciate the engineering.

It’s extremely well-built and takes careful consideration of factors often ignored by other cooling solutions. The NH-D15 G2 was secretly developing something similar to what we showed with some custom-made Scythe cooler coldplates that we had Scythe make early this year, which was trying to game the coldplate convexity to better match the CPU heat spreader’s surface concavity or flatness. 

Noctua was working on this for years and launched three models: The standard G2, HBC (or high-base convexity), and the LBC (low base convexity, sorry, Long Beach City) models subtly modify the convexity or flatness of the coldplate to better pair with deeply deformed Intel 13th and 14th Gen CPUs or with the relative flatness of AMD’s AM5 and AM4 CPUs with the LBC. Standard is meant to work on anything. We used our 3D laser scanner that we bought for cooler testing on the D15 G2 and discovered that the names really match the curvature.

We found that this wasn’t a gimmick and that there were actual, measurable and repeatable differences in benchmarks.

Noctua also lands on this list for its careful attention to detail on the fans, which it pairs and matches with slight RPM offsets intentionally in order to avoid a potential beat frequency phenomenon that could be annoying for some users. We have an interview with one of Noctua’s team members to talk about the engineering topics behind this. 

The D15 G2 also had excellent pressure distribution as a combination of its mounting hardware and the coldplate, shown in our mix of pressure maps across AM4 and Intel. 

An included washer mod added some further fine-tuning and small touches, though it was also clearly an attempt to try and bulk-on a value-add with the high price.

Thermally, the D15 G2 didn’t blow away any of the other coolers by massive margins. It’s a good cooler, but spending $120 more than competition doesn’t mean it’s suddenly competing with a 360mm liquid cooler. The G2 with the HBC solution and a washer mod ran at 52.5 degrees delta T in our review results for the 250W Intel heat load, which was better than coolers like the Peerless Assassin by several degrees (and is impressive), but predictably behind a high-performance liquid cooler. The physics just won’t support beating water and the huge surface area of a radiator. Being realistic about performance expectations is healthy, though, and Noctua never claimed that.
We appreciate what Noctua has done with its mechanical and thermal engineering. The company may move slowly, but thus far, it has moved with purpose. As we said in our review, this is the type of thing you buy if you have your heart set on it and can afford it. You are buying Noctua’s name with the G2 and, likewise, its support. It has already delivered one free update for owners of G2s with a relatively minor rattle complaint.


Innovative: be quiet! Light Base 600 Case Review & Benchmarks

13 décembre 2024 à 21:30
Innovative: be quiet! Light Base 600 Case Review & Benchmarksjimmy_thang December 13, 2024

We evaluate be quiet!’s Light Base 600’s specs, alternatives, build quality, design, thermals, and more

The Highlights

  • The Light Base 600 has the ability to lay horizontally, resembling older IBM-style PCs.
  • The Light Base 600 is expensive for a dual-chamber case and our unit had a large panel gap
  • With clever mechanical use of case stands and slotted top and bottom panels, the case can also be inverted or laid-out standard
  • Original MSRP:$150-$195
  • Release Date: September 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN Tear-Down Toolkit to support our AD-FREE reviews and IN-DEPTH testing while also getting a high-quality, highly portable 10-piece toolkit that was custom designed for use with video cards for repasting and water block installation. Includes a portable roll bag, hook hangers for pegboards, a storage compartment, and instructional GPU disassembly cards.

Intro

Today we’re reviewing the Light Base 600 by be quiet!. It’s a big deviation from the company’s monolithic towers with foam padding and is their first dual-chamber case. Be quiet! has gotten attention for designing this case with three presentations in mind: Standard, flat in traditional, old-school “desktop computer” design, and inverted. All of these have been done before, but be quiet!’s approach is simple and overall brilliant: To go flat, you remove the feet by turning them (like screws). To go inverted, you swap the feet to the other panel, which uses a slot-and-groove solution to notch them into place. This is fast enough that you could change it just because you’re bored of it or want to present the glass to a different side of the room.

Editor's note: This was originally published on November 13, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing, Writing

Patrick Lathan

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets
Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


The Light Base 600 is a dual-chamber with four SKUs, ranging from $150 to $195 in price. Our variant is $195 because it’s white and comes with case fans. The Light Base 900 is a larger variation on this. We’re reviewing the 600 since testing for these reviews is a big commitment, but the general concepts apply to both, just scaled up on the 900.

Light Base 600 Specs

Motherboard compatibilityATX, M-ATX, Mini-ITX
Case TypeMidi-Tower
PSUPS2 ATX (not included)
Dimensions (L x W x H in mm)450 x 305 x 435
MaterialSteel (SGCC), ABS, Glass
Light Base 600 LX Weight (kg)12.1 (net) / 14.6 (gross)
Light Base 600 DX Weight (kg)11.5 (net) / 14.0 (gross)
I/O Panel1x USB 3.2 Gen. 2 Type C, 2x USB 3.2 Type A, HD Audio (combined), ARGB controller, Reset button, Power button
PCI Slots7
Drive Baysup to 4x 2.5" (2 included)up to 2x 3.5" (1 included)
Light Base 600 LX Preinstalled fans (mm) / (rpm)Side: 3x Light Wings LX Reversed 120mm PWM
Rear: 1x Light Wings LX 120mm PWM
Light Base 600 DX Preinstalled fans (mm) / (rpm)--
Maximum fans (mm)Top: 2x 140 / 3x 120
Side: 3x 120
Bottom: 2x 140 / 3x 120
Rear: 1x 120
Optional radiators (mm)Top: 120 / 140 / 240 / 280 / 360
Side: 120 / 240
Bottom: 120 / 140 / 240 / 280 / 360
Rear: 120
Maximum Dimensions (mm)CPU cooler: up to 170
PSU: up to 200
GPU: 400
ARGB connector3-pin
MSRPLight Base 600 DX (Black): $150
Light Base 600 DX (White): $160
Light Base 600 LX (Black): $185
Light Base 600 LX (White): $195

Specs copied from manufacturer materials, please read review for our own measurements and opinions

Light Base 600 Alternatives

be quiet!’s key competitors for this include basically everyone, since dual-chamber cases have been so popular in recent years. If you’re thinking of buying this case, other cases you should know about include this quick list:

  • Lian Li’s O11 series, including the Vision, Evo series (watch our review), and other variants, which jump-started this entire case archetype in the current generation
  • Hyte Y60 & Y70, which give a new take on the concept with a cut-corner front that has been picked up by NZXT
  • NZXT’s H5 (watch our review), H7 (watch our review), and H9 series of cases vary in their similarities, but share some concepts
  • Montech’s King 95 and King 65 series, but especially the 95, for affordable dual-chamber options
  • Antec’s C8 cases, which we’ve found to be relatively good thermal performers for the price
  • Corsair’s 6500 Series cases, which we wouldn’t recommend overall (read our review)

And tons of others. We’ve left a lot out, but you get the idea: This is a crowded segment. A lot of these cases are in the $150 to $220 price range. A few are cheaper, like the empty Montech King 95 cases at $90 to $120 and the empty Antec C8, similarly priced.

It’ll be a big fight, but be quiet! does at least immediately differentiate itself with some unique features, one of which is their giant light bar that wraps the case. It was done this way so be quiet! could achieve the rotation without losing symmetry when you move the case around. In fact, all of this case had to be designed with symmetry in mind. That’s what gives the cheaper flexibility than more mechanically-intensive inversion processes from other cases -- but it’s also limiting in some areas.

Light Base 600 Basics

For the basics: Our version of this case includes 4x 120mm fans pre-installed as side intake and rear exhaust when it's in its traditional configuration. You could also shift these to the bottom as intake in a traditional orientation or, if rotated flat, they could be used as a side-to-side flow path. This on its own is pretty interesting and is one of the tests we ran. 

Other small fit-and-finish issues include a panel gap between the glass front and side, which is large enough that you’d need a taxi to get from one side to the other... The glass panels also diverge as they approach the bottom, with the bottom edge protruding slightly despite a flush top edge. We’ll come back to the fit-and-finish detail later though.

Getting into the big details:

The Build

We've criticized be quiet! in the past for its complicated case inversion processes. When we reviewed the Dark Base Pro 900, it took about 45 minutes to figure out disassembling and reassembling the case and sorting through the ridiculous variety and amount of screws and hardware. be quiet! must have taken that criticism to heart (even if 7 years later), because the Light Base 600 can be inverted in under ten seconds with no real screws at all (the design doc says 30 seconds, but that's with a system inside). 

The case feet can be pulled off by rotating them 90 degrees, then either placed on the top panel to invert the case or on the side panel to flip it on its side. It's not perfect: the feet don't lock and they go crooked as you slide the case around. They also feel fragile enough to damage by hand if positioned in the wrong spot. The ease of use outweighs the downsides, but the downsides were avoidable in design. Either way, once it’s done, these concerns go away.

This case also includes one of the simplest vertical GPU conversion systems we've seen. You take out all the horizontal slot covers, screw a bar across the back of the case, and adjust the built-in GPU support down a couple of notches.

The horizontal orientation is the most unique in the current era of computing, though it definitely used to be the standard. This old style is so liked in the retro scene that SilverStone made an April Fool’s case that accidentally became popular enough that there’s some real demand to make it.

The downside is that the Light Base 600 isn't a particularly small case, and because of its dual-chamber design, it's more than 32cm tall on its side. The 900 has even larger dimensions.

Backed against a wall, the case requires a minimum of 50cm up to the front edge of the case, requiring a deeper table to comfortably accommodate a keyboard and mouse if placed directly in front of the case. 

The dimensions make it impractical to use in the old IBM PC layout, but if you want to try it anyway, we recommend using a monitor arm rather than resting weight on the glass panel. We wouldn’t recommend setting it up with a monitor directly on it, especially since tempered glass can shatter without impact in some situations.

With the total monitor arm and monitor configuration, the setup could be made to look pretty unique -- we like the concept like this. Most of our desks are either 24” or 30” deep, with a few at 36” for filming. With that old-school setup with the computer right in front of the user, the 30” deep desks would only have 10” (or 25 cm) to spare for the keyboard and mouse. Plan your desk sizing appropriately. It’d obviously not be a problem if the system is off to the side of the keyboard and mouse. 

The desk in the image above is 30” deep and the lowest monitor can conflict with the top of the case, but this gives you an idea for sizing. You could definitely build a good-looking retro setup with the right color lighting and furniture, not that the 600 is confined to that style, but it would look good. You would just need a deep table. 

Fittingly for a case called the Light Base, there are dual LED and fan hubs in the back chamber. These have a total of 12x 4-pin fan and 12x 3-pin ARGB connections. The 600 LX's four stock fans occupy four of each type of plug (no daisy-chaining), but that still leaves eight unused pairs. Each hub has its own power and control inputs, allowing for two separate zones.

Our key focus is performance, but when LEDs are done, we still look for quality. We think the lighting is executed excellently; the diffuser bars work well and the LED animations are smooth. It looks good in a night-time or lights-out setup. 

Out of the box, all LEDs are set to be quiet! orange. The manual provides a full table of built-in lighting effects and instructions for syncing with external input. We thought the manual was well-written here. The cabling for the stock ARGB fans is a little overwhelming, but the light bars and their associated wires are tucked completely out of the way. 

Our one complaint is that the LED button and the reset button are exactly the same size and have no labels - though you’d probably only make that mistake once.

The Light Base 600 is another case without a support pillar between its two glass panels, giving us a top panel that could theoretically bend down. In practice, the top and bottom panels are interlocked with the front panel, keeping it solid as long as the case is assembled.

The steel side panel is fully ventilated, although the side intake vent and the PSU are the only areas where that's necessary. The side filter is removable for cleaning or additional airflow, which is an advantage over related designs like the HS 420 (read our review) and HYTE Y70 (read our review) where the side filters are glued in place. We’re happy to see that flexibility from be quiet!. Unfortunately, the top and bottom filters aren’t as flexible and are built into their respective panels: if you set up a horizontal build, some fans will exhaust through a filter that isn’t intended to be removed, which will create unnecessary impedance.

Primary radiator support in the case’s traditional orientation is at the top and bottom of the case, which both support up to 360mm sizes. 360mm radiators aren't officially supported in the side mount and most won't fit at all with the 39.6cm of clearance between the top and bottom of the case.

The Light Base 600 has cutouts for back-connect boards, but normal ATX boards overlap all the cutouts along the bottom edge. Small fan and I/O cables can be snaked through the back-connect holes anyway, but we expect clear, premeditated cable routes. The storage behind the motherboard is deep, as is typical for dual-chamber cases, but it can be difficult to work in once that space is occupied by cables. The cable tie points are hard to reach once PSU cables are in the way, with the cable cover, HDD bracket, and fan and lighting hubs contributing to a cramped feeling. We ended up just wadding all the cables into the channel and snapping the cable cover shut on top. It’s still easier than the Lancool 207, at least (read our review).

We'd like to see a way to screw the cover down, but the cable channel is deep enough that it's unlikely to be necessary.

Drive storage is a complicating factor for cable management. The stock Light Base 600 only supports 2x 2.5" drives and 1x 3.5" drive, with the two smaller drives mounted to the cable cover, which requires leaving enough slack to open it. The stock bottom bracket can only mount a single 3.5" drive, but it has room for a be quiet! HDD Cage 2 (purchased separately) which fits either an additional 3.5" drive or two 2.5" drives. Using the bottom bracket at all reduces access to cable cutouts and one of the two fan and lighting hubs.

There's a gap between the two glass panes; it's a matter of personal taste as to whether that's a problem, but it's definitely intentional and known since the case shipped with a strip of cardboard in that gap. 

The gaps where light bars meet (top and bottom) definitely aren't intentional, though, and be quiet! didn’t do anything to minimize that.

This is the most brightly-lit, attention-grabbing area of the case, and it needs to look perfect. The gaps don't belong on a $195 case the way our case is set up, and the deviation at the top and bottom edges of the glass makes for a messy execution where other areas are done to a higher standard. The panel gap isn’t great for looks, but could contribute to dust ingress, especially in a horizontal orientation where it would be exposed directly up. We all know how dust collects on glass surfaces.

Some smaller points we want be quiet! to address in future iterations: First, the PSU fitment was unnecessarily tight, to the point that we had a harder time than necessary getting it installed. 

Second, even though the GPU support still works when the case is inverted, it may be weaker since it can't be flipped. 

Light Base 600 Thermal Benchmarks

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Our model came with 3 reverse blade fans on the side and a traditional fan on the back.

We have a few key configurations of the Light Base 600 that we’re testing:

  • Stock, which is standing in its traditional orientation with the included fans where they come
  • Stock without a side filter
  • Inverted, which is self-evident
  • Flat with the fans left where they were, which becomes bottom intake. For the horizontal case testing, we removed the rubber bumpers in the side panel and we installed the feet in those slots. If we were testing the case without the feet there and just on the rubber bumpers then the bottom intake would be completely suffocated and far worse than what you’re going to see in our tests
  • Flat with left intake and right exhaust

CPU Thermals: Full Speed (Light Base Only)

We’ll start with a chart of just the Light Base results.

With all case fans at full speed, the Light Base 600 LX averaged 48 degrees Celsius above ambient all-core and 52 on the P-Cores in its default configuration. Removing the optional side filter reduced the all-core temperature by 1.7 degrees, which is a large drop for a side filter only. It’s relatively restrictive.

Fully inverting the case didn't change temperatures enough to exit the margin of error, which is encouraging since, for the most part, it shouldn’t. The GPU would be most prone to change here.

Flipping the case on its side definitely hurt CPU thermal performance, with an all-core average of 51 and P-Core average of 55. Left in their stock positions, the three intake fans are obstructed by the desk surface when the case is put on its side. We intended to fix that with the left intake/right exhaust horizontal configuration, but with a focus on GPU thermals, so CPU thermals didn't change significantly versus the first horizontal result. You can see that here.

Flipping the case on its side with the intake fans against the desk surface also raised the noise level up to 32.1 dBA, versus 30.9 dBA in the stock or inverted configurations. This is actually noticeable. It’s also really cool: Previously, our less precise testing approach to acoustics would not have been able to surface this difference in numbers even though you’d be able to hear it. That’s because we were limited by the noise floor and measurement tools. Now, with our hemi-anechoic chamber that the audience has helped us build, we can actually detect with tools what the human ear can already hear. That’s why we have this chamber. People forget that ears are incredible at their job and that representing it with a microphone is very difficult, so when they ask why we’d build such a chamber, this is exactly the reason. We can get closer to measuring what you actually perceive.

CPU Thermals: Full Speed (Competitive)

Here’s the full chart.

It's fitting that be quiet!'s case is among the quietest on the chart when at 100% speed, bracketed by the HYTE Y60 at 30.1 dBA and Fractal Pop Air (watch our review) at 31.3 dBA, but there are no obvious noise-damping features other than the use of Light Wings fans.

The Y60 (watch our review) may be equally quiet, but it's also much hotter with just its stock fans, averaging 51 degrees all-core versus the 600 LX's 48, so that is an advantage for the LX. We know based on past experience that the Antec C8 is the dual-chamber case to beat in terms of overall thermals, 46 degrees in this particular test (albeit with a higher noise level of 37.1 dBA), while the (glass-fronted) King 95 Pro (read our coverage) averaged 43 degrees (at 36.8 dBA). We'll get to noise-normalized thermals in a moment.

GPU Thermals: Full Speed (Be Quiet!)

GPU full speed is up now: 

The Light Base 600 LX kept our GPU at 52 degrees Celsius above ambient with the memory temperature at 60 and hotspot at 68. Removing the side filter improved temperatures by 2.2 degrees for the GPU, which is a huge climb for just a filter. be quiet! has room to improve this area. 

Inversion had a mildly negative effect, raising the GPU average to 54 degrees. The horizontal configuration was worse still at 55 degrees for the GPU, 63 for the memory, and 71 for the hotspot. Keeping the case horizontal but shifting to the left intake/right exhaust configuration dramatically lowered temperatures, down to 41 GPU, 44 memory, and 53 hotspot. This is the equivalent of a bottom-intake configuration in a case that's oriented normally, but with unobstructed intake.

GPU Thermals: Full Speed (Competitive)

Here’s the competitive chart. All of the results with the fans in their stock locations are among the weakest on the chart, with the baseline out-of-the-box result falling behind even the Y60. The left intake/right exhaust configuration performed significantly better, tying the C8 ARGB's 41 degree GPU average and significantly outperforming the King 95 Pro's 46 degree average. As a reminder, this was done with just the included fans. All we did was move them. We didn’t want to add fans because it starts to become arbitrary and potentially unfair, but moving them really helped here. The horizontal configuration has the greatest potential for cooling, since a clear unidirectional airflow path can be created without obstruction. You’re not dealing with angled intake from the side, so there is a huge amount of potential here.

CPU Thermals: Noise-Normalized

The Light Base 600 LX's low noise at full speed means it has a shot in our noise normalized test, where all case fans are tuned down to hit our 27 dBA threshold. We normalize these in our hemi-anechoic chamber to get the granularity needed for a fair test.

50 degrees Celsius above ambient all-core and 54 P-Core ties the Antec C8 ARGB (read our review), but the King 95 Pro averaged 47 all-core, and cases with simple front intake like the Antec Flux Pro (read our review) and Lian Li Lancool 207 continue to dominate the top of the chart. 

GPU Thermals: Noise-Normalized

GPU thermal performance was already weak with the case fans at full speed, and with reduced fan speeds, the 600 LX is the hottest case on this chart other than the King 65 Pro. This is a strong argument for the horizontal left-to-right airflow configuration. These were all at the same noise levels. We’ve normalized them for this test. This is not a good result for be quiet!.

Standardized Fans: GPU Thermals

Because we were forced to mount the 140mm fans in the bottom of the case for our standardized fan test, we have an opportunity to see the case's bottom intake performance. 

An average GPU temperature of 44 degrees Celsius above ambient is more competitive than the other GPU thermal results we've seen from the 600 LX so far, close to the King 95 Pro and C8 ARGB's tied 43 degree averages, but that still only places the LX in the middle of the chart. This is also effectively a test of the Light Base 600 DX, since we would have performed all tests on that case using our standardized set of fans.

VRM Thermals: Noise-Normalized

Finishing off with VRM and system memory thermals during the noise normalized test, the 600 LX's performance is again unimpressive. 35 degrees above ambient for the VRM is warmer than the C8 ARGB's 33 degrees and the King 95 Pro's 31 degrees, and although the stack is ordered differently for memory temperatures, both the C8 ARGB and King 95 Pro were cooler than the 600 LX's 27 degrees. We also know from our full speed results that these sensors didn't respond strongly to the horizontal left intake/right exhaust reconfiguration.

Light Base 600 Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

The Light Base 600 LX is on the expensive end of dual-chamber cases with included fans, especially when taking into account the thermal performance of the Antec C8 ARGB and King 95 Pro. Both of those cases also have fanless SKUs that are cheaper than the Light Base 600's fanless SKUs. 

The primary reason for buying the Light Base 600 over any of those other options (including the NZXT H9 Flow, which we haven't tested) is the wraparound light bar, so we're at least happy to see that the light bar looks good in person, with bright, evenly-diffused LEDs. It was critical that they executed on this feature well and they did do a good job on it. There were a couple caveats surrounding the fit and finish, like the panel flushness.

The horizontal option is also a unique selling point, but it's one that few people have the desk space to try. But this is a well-liked presentation layout, it ends up looking better than you might expect when looking at it vertically, and it’s a unique feature that is also executed overall well. It’s also mechanically simple. You’ll just have to plan your furniture more than typical, which isn’t so bad once you’re aware of the sizing.

If you do buy a Light Base 600 and you want to maximize thermal performance, we suggest using the horizontal configuration with side intake fans pushing directly into the GPU and exhaust fan(s) pulling hot air out of the opposite side. 

A few things to be careful of: If using a closed-loop liquid cooler, or “AIO,” with a pump in the block, you wouldn’t want to bottom mount it when the case is on its side. You should never bottom-mount a liquid cooler with the pump at the highest point in the loop, which that would do. Mounting the radiator to the side -- which was the “top” before going flat -- would be best. This will still put one side of the radiator tank at the highest point, which can create some bubbling noises in loops with less liquid or as they permeate over a 5-year period, but wouldn’t lead to catastrophic failure like a bottom-mount will.

All of this changes if you have the pump somewhere else in the loop, like the radiator.

It's good to see some movement from be quiet!, but although back-connect compatibility is fairly new, dual-chamber cases and ARGB LEDs are years-old trends. It'll take some time for the company to become a leader in cases again, rather than a follower. The company has also deviated from some of be quiet!’s expectations, which isn’t a bad thing. Fractal deviated as well and it worked out well for them. 

We like the case overall for its unique presentation. It is mechanically simple and it works well. Aside from that, there are no revolutionary changes to the build process or features. 

But once cases clear a bar for acceptable performance and for functionality, what matters most is that you like the way it looks. This case clears those bars. If you’re a big fan of the layout, we’re not seeing any major detractors to advise against a purchase.


Intel Arc B580 'Battlemage' GPU Review & Benchmarks vs. NVIDIA RTX 4060, AMD RX 7600, & More

11 décembre 2024 à 21:09
Intel Arc B580 'Battlemage' GPU Review & Benchmarks vs. NVIDIA RTX 4060, AMD RX 7600, & Morejimmy_thang December 11, 2024

We test the B580’s ray tracing capabilities, power efficiency, and performance across numerous games at 4K, 1440p, and 1080p

The Highlights

  • The B580 represents the first graphics card that uses Intel’s Battlemage GPU architecture
  • The B580’s idle power consumption needs improvement and we couldn’t get the GPU to run Cyberpunk at RT Ultra settings
  • The B580 highlights how Battlemage has improved tremendously over Intel’s Alchemist GPU architecture
  • Original MSRP: $250
  • Release Date: December 13, 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

Intel’s Battlemage B580 GPU launches at $250. In our testing, the card has improved massively over the company’s original Alchemist GPU launch, so it’s already in a better spot than previously. By price, the B580 is positioned to compete with the NVIDIA RTX 4060 $300 GPU and the AMD RX 7600 at $250. Both NVIDIA and AMD have new GPUs launching in early January, but until they’re out, we can’t evaluate their performance.
What we can say is that, out of the gate, the B580 is far more reliable than the Alchemist cards were at launch. Intel has definitely improved. It still has issues and it was still shipping driver updates until the last minute of testing, but the company has objectively improved.

Editor's note: This was originally published on December 12, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing

Patrick Lathan

Testing, Editing

Mike Gaglione

Chart QC

Jeremy Clayton

Camera

Tim Phetdara
Andrew Coleman

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


Frametimes have largely been smoothed over, but remain a potential pain point for Intel in some games. Idle power consumption is also a pain point; however, overall value and throughput are competitive, and ray tracing performance is particularly competitive, especially against AMD.

We also found that the B580 scales extremely well with higher resolutions, seeing the most uplift over the 4060 or 7600 at 4K and 1440p, and often losing that ground at 1080p.

It’s an interesting review packed with a ton of new information, including a complete overhaul of our GPU test bench to an overclocked 9800X3D platform.

Let’s get started.

Intel B580 Overview, Pricing, & Specs

Here’s a quick refresher on the current market for GPU prices, but remember that the RTX 50 series is rumored to launch next month, followed by rumors of new AMD GPUs. 

GPU Price Comparison | GamersNexus | Early December, 2024

Newegg PriceAmazon Price
Intel B580 (MSRP $250)$250NFS
Intel A770$230$280
Intel A750$240$200
Intel A580$170$170
NVIDIA RTX 4060 Ti 8GB$400$400
NVIDIA RTX 4060$300$295
NVIDIA RTX 3060$280$270
NVIDIA RTX 3050$170$170
AMD RX 6600$190$200
AMD RX 6600 XT$240$260
AMD RX 7600$250$252
AMD RX 7700 XT$400$420

For today: The B580 has an MSRP of $250 and was available for preorder on Newegg at this price. The prior Intel A770 is available for $230 to $280 for the 16GB model, with the A750 at $200 to $240 and A580 at $170. NVIDIA’s RTX 4060 is a main competitor, typically at $300, alongside the RX 7600 at price parity with the B580. These will be the two key comparisons.

One step up, the 4060 Ti 8GB and 7700 XT are both around $400 to $420 right now, making them primary upgrade options another class up.

Intel B580 Specs

We already covered the B580 specs in a video, but here are the basics again:

The card launches ahead of the B570 (watch our coverage), which launches next month. The B580 is a relatively small 20 Xe2 core configuration on the Battlemage architecture, making it smaller than the A750 or A770 in configuration size. Intel hasn’t yet announced 700-series cards in the Battlemage series.

The B580 has a 190W default TDP, runs on 1x 8-pin power connector, and is cut down to PCIe 4.0 x8, which is a potential downside for anyone on old platforms. We’d have to look at that separately in the future.

Test Bench Overhaul

We have a brand new test bench for all of this. We’ve moved from an overclocked 12700K to an AMD 9800X3D, which marks the first time we’ve used an AMD CPU as our permanent GPU test bench solution in the nearly 16 years we’ve been running now. The 9800X3D gives us far better headroom and scaling to see the impact of high-end GPUs that should be coming out soon. We have it overclocked to 5.4GHz all-core and under a 420mm Arctic Liquid Freezer III.

GPU Game Test Suite | 2025 Methodology | GamersNexus

GameResolution & SettingsRelease Year
Black Myth: Wukong Benchmark1080p/High
1440p/High
4K/High
*Upscaling is not used. 100% for all tests. Game forces selection, selected FSR. Full RT disabled.
2024
(Ray Tracing) Black Myth: Wukong Benchmark1080p/High Raster/Medium RT/FSR Quality
1440p/High Raster/Medium RT/FSR Quality
4K/High Raster/Medium RT/FSR Quality
*FSR selected as upscaling method for all tests. Scaling set to "FSR Quality" equivalent. Full Ray Tracing set to Medium.
2024
F1 241080p/High
1440p/High
4K/High
2024
(Ray Tracing) F1 241080p/RT Ultra
1440p/RT Ultra
4K/RT Ultra
*Based on Ultra High preset.
2024
Dragon's Dogma 21080p/Max
1440p/Max
4K/Max
*All settings maxed except for RT (this is not an in-game preset).
2024
(Ray Tracing) Dragon's Dogma 21080p/Max RT
1440p/Max RT
4K/Max RT
*All settings maxed (this is not an in-game preset).
2024
Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail Benchmark1080p/Maximum
1440p/Maximum
4K/Maximum
2024
Resident Evil 4 (2023)1080p/Prioritize Graphics
1440p/Prioritize Graphics
4K/Prioritize Graphics
2023
(Ray Tracing) Resident Evil 4 (2023)1080p/FSR Quality/Max RT
1440p/FSR Quality/Max RT
4K/FSR Quality/Max RT
*Based on "Maximum" preset.
2023
Baldur's Gate 31080p/DX11/Ultra-Custom
1440p/DX11/Ultra-Custom
4K/DX11/Ultra-Custom
*Custom settings.
2023
Starfield1080p/Ultra
1440p/Ultra
4K/Ultra
2023
Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty1080p/Ultra
1440p/Ultra
4K/Ultra
2023
(Ray Tracing) Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty1080p/RT Medium
1440p/RT Medium
4K/RT Medium
1080p/RT Ultra
1440p/RT Ultra
4K/RT Ultra
*Based on Ray Tracing: Ultra and Ray Tracing: Medium presets.
2023
Dying Light 2 Stay Human1080p/DX12/High-Custom
1440p/DX12/High-Custom
4K/DX12/High-Custom
*Based on "High" preset but with DX12 and associated features.
2022
(Ray Tracing) Dying Light 2 Stay Human1080p/DX12/FSR Quality/RT High Quality
1440p/DX12/FSR Quality/RT High Quality
4K/DX12/FSR Quality/RT High Quality
*Based on "High Quality Raytracing" preset.
2022
Total War: Warhammer III1080p/Ultra
1440p/Ultra
4K/Ultra
2022
NOTESDynamic resolution, upscaling, VSync, and VRS are disabled unless otherwise noted, even if they would normally be enabled by the in-game preset. RT features are disabled in tests not prefixed with (Ray Tracing). Games are run in exclusive fullscreen mode if available.

Our games list includes these. Not all of these will be shown in each review, but they are all tested. We’ve added Dragon’s Dogma 2 from 2024, Black Myth: Wukong from 2024, Baldur’s Gate 3 from 2023 -- which will be too easy for high-end GPUs, but is a good match for the B580, Starfield from 2023, Final Fantasy 14: Dawntrail from 2024, Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty from 2023, and all the others you see above.

Cards Tested

CardTime Tested
NVIDIA RTX 4090 CybertankDecember, 2024
AMD RX 7800 XT RefDecember, 2024
EVGA RTX 3060 XC Black 12GBDecember, 2024
ASUS RTX 4060 DualDecember, 2024
Intel Arc B580 RefDecember, 2024
Sparkle Arc A580 OrcDecember, 2024
EVGA RTX 3050 XC Black 8GBDecember, 2024
XFX RX 6600 COREDecember, 2024
PowerColor RX 6600 XT Red DevilDecember, 2024
XFX RX 6500 XT BlackDecember, 2024
Sparkle Arc A750 TitanDecember, 2024
AMD RX 7600 RefDecember, 2024
Acer Arc A770 BiFrost 16GBDecember, 2024
EVGA RTX 3060 Ti FTW3December, 2024
XFX RX 6700 XT MERC BlackDecember, 2024
NVIDIA RTX 4060 Ti FE 8GBDecember, 2024
EVGA RTX 2060 KODecember, 2024
EVGA GTX 1060 SSC 6GBDecember, 2024
XFX RX 7700 XT BlackDecember, 2024
NVIDIA RTX 4070 FEDecember, 2024
Sapphire RX 7900 XTX NitroDecember, 2024
EVGA GTX 1070 SCDecember, 2024
Sparkle Arc A380 ElfDecember, 2024
Colorful RTX 3070 BiliBiliDecember, 2024
EVGA GTX 1650 SC Ultra GamingDecember, 2024

We’ve tested about 25 GPUs for this launch. That list does not include the RTX 4080, 4080 Super, 4070 Ti or Super, 7900 XT or GRE, and similar high-end cards. You can find scaling data in our prior benchmarks for those.

We added the 7900 XTX and RTX 4090 for a ceiling. 

The reason for the cuts is time -- rolling into the end of year with team scheduling and our own travel, we wanted to allocate more testing time to older hardware or lower-end stuff to represent users considering an upgrade. That means we cut the high-end stuff for the GTX 1060 (watch our revisit), 1070 (watch our review), RTX 2060 (watch our review), GTX 1650 (watch our review), and similar cards. We’ll add higher-end GPUs in for the January launches, but they’re out of the price range of the B580.

As far as cards with multiple VRAM configurations, we ran the “default” or first-launched VRAM configuration wherever an option was present. 

Finally on the test bench side, we’ve added power efficiency testing and idle power consumption testing with calibrated tools.

We have a lot more to test, but this article is huge already and we have a busy time ahead of us with some travel.

Let’s get into the benchmarks.

Grab a GN15 All-Over Print Component Mouse Mat for a high-quality mousing surface that'll fit your keyboard & mouse. These mouse mats use a high-quality yellow rubber underside, a blue stitched border for fray resistance, and are covered in PC parts. This is the best way to support our work and keeps us ad-free to support consumer-first reviews!

B580 Gaming Benchmarks

FFXIV - 4K

Final Fantasy 14: Dawntrail is up now at 4K first.

At 4K, the Intel Arc B580 ran at 47 FPS AVG, with lows exceptionally close to the average. The B580 has a staggering lead of 28.6% over the RTX 4060, which is elevated as compared to its lead at 1440p and 1080p. The RTX 4060 (watch our review) is behind in lows also; although they remain consistent with its average.

The B580 also leads the RTX 4060 Ti at 15% ahead, the A770 by 16.5%, A750 by an impressive 27.9%. The RX 7600 is around the same price as the B580, but struggles at 4K in this test at 31.5 FPS AVG.

Users of the GTX 1060 6GB card would experience an uplift of about 193% moving to the B580, with the 1070 seeing 110% and the 3050 similar.

As we saw in our 4060 review, the 3060 Ti (watch our review) has a massive memory bandwidth advantage over its successors and embarrasses the 4060 and 4060 Ti cards here.

From what we’ve tested lately that’s better than the B580. That list includes the $450-$480 7800 XT at 22% better and the RTX 4070 non-Super at 27% better, among the flagships.

FFXIV - 1440p

At 1440p, the gap narrows in some places. The B580 is running at a completely playable 86 FPS AVG with good lows. Its lead over lower cards has decreased: 3.4% against the 4060 Ti (watch our review), 9% against the A770 (down from 16.5%), 19% over the A750 and RTX 4060 (from around 28% before), and 31% over the RX 7600 (watch our review).

The RX 7800 XT jumps to 40% from 22% and the 4070 jumps to 36% from 27%. The $400 RX 7700 XT (watch our review) leads at 98 FPS to 86 FPS AVG on the B580, but is more expensive.

The B580 looks good here despite a reduction in its lead from 4K.

FFXIV - 1080p

1080p squishes everything together and reduces the B580’s advantage.

The B580 at 124 FPS AVG is now just 10 FPS ahead of the A770 and RTX 4060, or about 10%. The B580 went from a 28.6% lead at 4K to 19% at 1440p to 10% over the RTX 4060. 

At 1440p, the RX 6700 XT (watch our review) was marginally below the B580 and is now ahead at 1080p. The B580 also had nearly a 15% lead over the RTX 4060 Ti at 4K, but now is behind. The 4060 Ti leads at 133 FPS, or an advantage of 7.6%. That’s a huge swing.

Starfield - 1440p

Starfield is up now, tested at 1440p.

The B580 isn’t as strong in this one as it was elsewhere. Starfield is also a game that was not functional on Arc at its launch, so running at all is already better than last time -- though that’s a low bar.

The B580 ends up behind the RX 7600, RTX 4060, and 4060 Ti in this benchmark. It’s beating the A770, A750, and A580 cards from Intel’s last gen.

The 4060 leads by about 17%, with the 4060 Ti in an insurmountable 42% lead. The 7600 is closer, at 5% ahead. 

The biggest downside here is the frametime pacing. Intel’s B580 struggles with 0.1% lows and 1% lows, which are indicative of a deeper per-frame problem that requires a frametime plot to investigate. We’ll explore that later in this review, closer to the conclusion.

Starfield - 1080p

At 1080p, the B580 ran at 51 FPS AVG, giving the RTX 4060 a 10 FPS AVG lead, but an even bigger lead in lows. Although the 4060 has an advantage of 21% in average framerate, the real difference is in frametime pacing that we’ll see closer at the end of this review.

The RX 7600’s lead is now 4%, with the 4060 Ti at 44%.

Intel’s B580 leads the A770 by an impressive generational 16%, despite a lower core count configuration. That’s a huge win for Intel over its own hardware. Its lead over the A750 is 27%. Despite these gains, the B580 is not that competitive in Starfield.

Resident Evil 4 - 4K

Resident Evil at 4K is pretty interesting. The B580 roughly matches the 4060 Ti, with a marginal deficit on 0.1% lows. The lead over the 4060 is massive, benefiting the B580 by 31% in average FPS. It also holds an advantage in lows. The lead over the 7600 is 24%, with the generational lead over the A580 and A750 alike impressive.

This is a strong showing for Intel’s B580.

Resident Evil 4 - 1440p

At 1440p, the B580 maintains a competitive position: The card is fully playable at 85 FPS AVG with overall OK lows, albeit lower proportionally versus the neighboring A770 and RTX 3060 Ti. With the resolution drop, the 4060 Ti now leads the B580 by 7% from its rough equivalence before. B580 benefits from its memory bandwidth at 4K.

The lead over the RTX 4060 is reduced to a still-noteworthy 22.5%, down from 31%. The 7600 lead is reduced from 24% at 4K to 18% at 1440p.

Resident Evil 4 - 1080p

1080p weakens the B580’s position overall. The 4060 Ti now moves to 10% ahead. The B580’s lead over the 4060 is reduced to 19%, although this is still a big lead. Most notably though, we see the frametimes deviate more from the average: The 128 FPS AVG is accompanied by 74 FPS and 63 FPS 1% and 0.1% lows with the B580, whereas proportionally and based on neighbors, these figures should be in the 100-110 territory. The drop jumps out as different from the rest.

Baldur’s Gate 3 - 4K

Baldur’s Gate 3 is up now, one of the most played games in the last year. Intel needs to do well in these types of critically acclaimed titles. Last round, we saw that Intel did better with Vulkan in Baldur’s Gate 3 than it did with Dx11, but was still disadvantaged in both APIs.

With Dx11 and 4K/Ultra, the B580 ran at 45 FPS AVG. The lows are reduced versus its immediate neighbors in the 4060 and 7600, both of which would be better experiences by frametimes alone, despite all looking approximately equal in average FPS. This is another for our frametime charts list at the end.

The B580 improves on the A750 by 6% and the A580 by 21%, falling behind the A770 in this one. The Arc cards are generally less competitive in frametime consistency in this game; however, they have significantly improved in their performance from a year ago.

Baldur’s Gate 3 - 1440p

Here’s 1440p.

The B580 ran at 74 FPS AVG, which is completely playable in this game. The lows are also acceptable in an objective sense -- it’s not a “bad” experience, but it’s also not as good as you’d get for frametime pacing from the RTX 3060 (watch our review), RTX 4060, or RX 6600 XT (watch our review).

The 6600 XT’s average framerate holds a 14% lead, with the 4060 at 8% ahead, breaking rank from a roughly tied average at 4K. The 7600 also climbs ahead, now matching the 6600 XT rather than the B580 AVG FPS as we saw at 4K. The 4060 Ti is 35% ahead of the B580 with its 100 FPS AVG.

Generationally, Intel improves over the Alchemist A750 by 7%, with a notable leap over the 62 FPS AVG of the A580.

Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty - 1440p

In Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty at 1440p, the B580 performs overall well. This is one of Intel’s strongest titles. 

At 1440p and with Ultra settings, without RT, the B580 lands at 53 FPS AVG in our in-game test within one of the cities. The B580 roughly matches the RTX 3070, although is lower in 0.1% lows and frametime consistency. The B580 leads the RTX 4060 in AVG FPS by 36%, the RX 7600 by a similarly large gulf, and the RTX 4060 Ti 8GB model by 12%. The 4060 Ti has stronger 0.1% lows, but not in a way which we think is worth the cost tradeoff.

Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty - 1080p

At 1080p, the B580 slips in the ranks below the 4060 Ti, which also carries a large advantage in 0.1% lows. 

The B580 technically leads the RTX 4060 in AVG FPS by 18%, but the 4060 pulls ahead in overall frametime consistency. The RX 7600 is in a similar boat.

Black Myth: Wukong - 1080p

Black Myth: Wukong is next. This is one of the few games where we use the built-in benchmark. It’s new to our test suite and it’s been pretty consistent. Dropping settings would obviously increase framerate, but we’re interested in this from a scaling standpoint.

At High settings, broadly speaking, the B580 still has a slight deficit in lows, but a far less noticeable one than some other games. It’s close enough to the RX 7600 and RTX 3060 that the experience would feel overall similar, although technically worse by measurement.

The RTX 4060 holds a significant lead in this test, up at 19% and 54 FPS AVG to the 46 FPS on the B580. Frametime consistency is also better. The 3060 Ti leads the 4060 and B580, with the 4060 Ti at 65 FPS AVG, or 42% ahead of the B580.

The B580 at least improved on the last generation, at 29% over the A750, and 38% over the A580. Intel is making big generational strides against itself here.

Black Myth: Wukong - 1440p

At 1440p, we’re bordering on synthetic test territory for the B580. But what matters most to us is the scaling, not the raw FPS.

At 35 FPS AVG, the B580 allows the 4060 a lead of 6.6%, down from 19% at 1080p. This is a huge swing in favor of the B580, which continues to scale more favorably at higher resolutions.

The 7600 falls below the B580 in average FPS and is roughly the same in lows. The B580 also leads the prior generation flagship from Intel, the A770, which was at 30 FPS AVG. We’re going to pick up the speed here now that patterns are establishing.

Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1440p

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is up next. For our CPU testing, we benchmark inside the city to create an NPC workload on the CPU. For GPU testing, we test outside of the city and in a GPU-heavy area with fields, water, and structures.

At 1440p, the B580 ran at 44 FPS AVG with good lows. The GPU does much better here than in some of the prior tests and ends up keeping pace with the RTX 4060. The 7600, 4060, and B580 are all functionally equivalent. The 3060 Ti (watch our review) benefits from its memory bandwidth and leads this grouping.

This is a much better positioning for the B580 than the prior games.

Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1080p

At 1080p, things shake-up to knock the B580 loose from its rough equivalence with the RX 7600 and RTX 4060. Now, the RTX 4060 holds a 13% lead, with the RX 7600 in an 11% lead. The B580 retains overall typical frametime pacing, which is good for Arc. It manages to hang in there, but it’s seen some losses as the resolution comes down.

Dying Light 2 - 1440p

Dying Light 2 is next. This one looks good for Intel Arc, including frametime consistency: The B580 runs at 63 FPS AVG, which has it ahead of the 4060 Ti, 4060, and 7600. It’s also ahead of all of these devices in 1% and 0.1% lows, in what’s a major victory for Intel considering its challenges in some other games.

The B580 ends up between the RTX 3070 and RX 6700 XT. The $400 7700 XT holds a lead in AVG FPS of 12%, despite being 60% more expensive. This is one of the stronger showings for Intel.

Dying Light 2 - 1080p

At 1080p, the B580 continues its good performance by outmatching the A770 and RTX 4060; however, it loses ground to the 4060 Ti that it had outperformed at 1440p. The 87 FPS AVG is well into playable territory and carries good lows. The die size is much smaller than an A770, so outperforming it is key here: Intel may be able to reduce some of its cost per card, which will help it compete long-term.

Intel B580 Ray Tracing Benchmarks

We’re moving on to ray tracing benchmarks. These are not comparable to the rasterized charts.

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Ray Tracing: Resident Evil 4 - 4K

Resident Evil 4 is up first. This is a relatively light workload for ray tracing and isn’t as distorted for one vendor or another as some other games.

This first chart is at 4K with Max RT, but with FSR set to quality for all devices. We have validated other upscaling solutions and found their performance to be roughly identical, so matching for just FSR agnostically allows us to control for image quality as well. Because we are using FSR, it is not native resolution. We don’t use FSR in our rasterized tests.

Here’s the 4K chart. The B580 ends up directly competing with the RTX 4060 Ti in the average framerate and in frametime consistency, with lows overall indicative of a comparable frame-to-frame interval to the 4060 Ti. It’s not far off from the RTX 3070. Intel’s B580 leads the RTX 4060 by 21%, at 50 FPS to 41 FPS AVG. The improvement over the A750 is similar. We need to run the 7600 back through this one still, but the 7700 XT and 6600 XT give an idea for AMD’s positioning.

Ray Tracing: Resident Evil 4 - 1440p

In this test, the Intel B580 runs at 75 FPS AVG with overall good lows. The 1% and 0.1% metrics are similar to what we see on the 3060 Ti, which outperforms the B580. Intel’s B580 manages to outperform the RTX 4060 by 6%, including proportional frametimes. It also outperforms the A770’s 71 FPS AVG, which was already relatively good for RT. AMD’s RX 7600 ran at 65 FPS AVG, giving the B580 nearly a 16% advantage while costing about the same.

The 4060 Ti’s 91 FPS result outdoes the B580’s 75 FPS by 21%, including scaling in the lows. The 7700 XT pushes further ahead, up to 106 FPS AVG. Both devices cost about 60% more than the B580, at around $400 for the 4060 Ti 8GB and 7700 XT alike.

Ray Tracing: Resident Evil 4 - 1080p

At 1080p and with the same FSR and RT settings, Resident Evil 4 positions the B580 now below the RTX 4060 -- though they’re functionally tied. It’s losing the advantage that we’ve now proven it typically has at higher resolutions. These two and the RX 7600 are closest in price, with the 7600 down at 85 FPS AVG and allowing the B580 a slight lead of 9%.

The 4060 Ti leads the B580 by 29%, with the 7700 XT 40% ahead of Battlemage.

Overall, Intel’s performance in this lighter RT test is competitive, especially for the price and in comparison to AMD. 

Ray Tracing: Dying Light 2 - 1080p

Dying Light 2 is a heavier RT workload and is tested with FSR Quality. 

At 1080p, the B580 ran at 65 FPS AVG and held consistent frametimes. It’s a little better than the A770 and similar in average to the 3060 Ti. The 4060 Ti leads the B580 with its 73 FPS AVG result, a gain of 12%. The B580 leads the 4060 by 13%. AMD falls behind in this test, with the 6700 XT now below the B580 and RTX 4060. The B580 ends up with nearly a 30% lead over the 6700 XT, which is a precarious spot for AMD. The lead over the RX 7600’s 45 FPS AVG is 44%.

Ray Tracing: Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1080p

In Dragon’s Dogma 2 with Max RT and no upscaling, the B580 ran at 44 FPS AVG with lows slightly lower than where they should be. The A770 leads the B580 in lows and ties in the average. 

AMD’s RX 7600 does better here than in Cyberpunk and Black Myth, up at 53 FPS AVG and outranking the B580 by 20%. The RTX 4060 also outdoes the B580 (and also outperforms the 7600’s frametime pacing), landing at 54 FPS AVG.

Battlemage is doing OK, but does not have the same advantage it has elsewhere.

Ray Tracing: Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1440p

At 1440p and RT with Dragon’s Dogma 2, the B580 ran at 36 FPS AVG and had dips in lows compared to the neighboring prior-generation A-series GPUs. The 7600 leads the card now by about 10%, reducing its lead from at 1080p. The RTX 4060 is in a similar position, but with better lows.

Ray Tracing: Cyberpunk - 1080p Medium

Cyberpunk with Medium RT settings is less brutal on AMD than Ultra, something we showed in our last round of reviews, but remains one of the heaviest RT loads and disproportionately hard on AMD devices. This is tested without any upscaling.

The B580 did overall well here: Its average framerate was competitive with the RTX 3060 Ti, despite lower 0.1% lows than it. The 4060 struggles in this one with frametime pacing and is erratic and unpredictable with these settings. The B580 is a much better experience, with the 3060 Ti and up better still. The 4060 Ti also struggles with frametime consistency, illustrated by the 0.1% lows that draw our attention to the problem. This appears to be an issue with memory bandwidth, especially as contrasted to the 3060 Ti, which likely compounds with the VRAM capacity.

In a massive loss for AMD, the B580 runs 62% ahead of its RX 7600 in average framerate while also maintaining superior lows and frametime pacing. AMD’s closest card is the RX 7700 XT, which is significantly more expensive. This is a repeat of what we saw with the Alchemist cards last time, where the A770 and A750 alike outperformed AMD’s 6700 XT and 7600.

We tried testing RT Ultra for Cyberpunk, but unfortunately, the system hard locked with the B580 card. This behavior did not occur on any of the other 18 plus devices we tested with these settings and appears to be related to Battlemage.

Ray Tracing: Black Myth Wukong - 1080p (Experimental)

Black Myth: Wukong is up next. 

This is an experimental chart, which means we are still researching the performance and vetting it. Our confidence is lower in data for experimental charts, which means they should be weighted less; however, we publish them when we feel we are ready to begin sharing, as this allows us to continue learning and advancing. We just like to be clear in our disclosures of data confidence.

This one is brutal on anything that isn’t NVIDIA. Intel also had a last-minute driver update for RT performance in this game.

At 1080p and with FSR set to quality, using high raster settings and medium RT settings, the B580 ran at 34 FPS AVG, with lows where they should be. Intel’s last-minute driver change did nothing to our results -- they were nearly identical, so we’re just showing one set here. The B580 ranks alongside the RX 7800 XT (watch our review), as AMD has serious difficulties with this game. Wukong is similar in performance to Cyberpunk in its performance characteristics on AMD, where even a 4060 outperforms a 7900 XTX.

For Intel, it at least is doing better comparatively than AMD, but NVIDIA has a stranglehold here.

Frametime Consistency Inspection

We’ll move to some quick zoomed-in shots of the frametime charts for some good and bad scenarios for the B580.

Frametime Consistency: Baldur’s Gate 3 (4K)

We’ll start with Baldur’s Gate 3 at 4K. This chart shows the frame-to-frame interval on the vertical axis and the frame on the horizontal axis.

Lower is better, more consistent is best. Although the B580 is at times lower than the RTX 4060, the card experiences occasional but massive excursions from the previous frame. We’re seeing some jumps upwards of 20ms, which is noticeable, but not necessarily game-breaking -- it depends on the frequency of them. In this case, you’d notice. Arc has improved substantially from Alchemist in this specific regard, but it’s clear that Intel still has some work to do in at least Dx11 with this game.

Frametime Consistency: Dying Light 2 (1440p)

Dying Light 2 rasterized is one of the better scenarios for Arc, so we’ll balance by also looking at that as well.

In this one, the B580 had better frametimes across the entire bench pass. It’s lower overall, but also doesn’t experience any major unexpected deviations. Unlike the Baldur’s Gate chart, the B580 GPU is exceptionally consistent in its frametime pacing here. The 4060 ends up the worse of the two tested devices.

Frametime Consistency: Phantom Liberty RT (1080p)

In this next one, NVIDIA and its RTX 4060 are a victim of its own creation. In Cyberpunk with RT Medium, the RTX 4060’s framebuffer and memory bandwidth cause it to struggle, resulting in frametime spikes that, in one case in this chart, exceed 120ms. That’s 1/10th a second that you’re looking at the same frame. This massive spike would result in a stutter in-game. These stutters were repeatable during play. There’s another large spike later in the run. They also happen frequently in our later runs. 

The B580 did not exhibit this behavior in this test and would be a better experience. Intel’s memory choices benefit the company here; bandwidth is one of them but capacity also contributes.

Frametime Consistency: Starfield

Starfield had some major consistency issues run-to-run for Intel so we’re actually only showing Intel here.

This shows 2 test passes from Starfield at 1080p for the B580. In this one, you’re seeing wildly inconsistent frame pacing with a total range from 13ms to 53ms. There’s no pattern to it and frame delivery is overall erratic, making the experience less consistent and allowing more microstutter behaviors to emerge. Dying Light 2 looked much better for Battlemage.

Frametime Consistency: FFXIV 1440p

Final Fantasy 14 is next. In this one, B580 did well overall but had slightly reduced 0.1% lows versus the 3060 Ti and 6700 XT; however, it did better than the RTX 4060 across the board. In the frametime chart for Final Fantasy, we see an incredibly flat line with only one major spike that would hardly be noticeable since it isn’t repeating.

Let’s move on to efficiency.

Intel B580 Power Consumption & Efficiency (Experimental)

Now, we’re getting into power consumption and power efficiency measurements. For this testing, we’re using a PMD2 hooked into a PCIe slot interposer and the PCIe cables. This PMD2 has been personally calibrated by Elmor, from ElmorLabs, for our work upon request and has been validated against other measurement devices, including current clamps. We are isolating for just GPU power, eliminating other test bench power draw. This allows us a clean and isolated feed of GPU behavior.

We haven’t yet tested our full lineup of GPUs as this is all brand new testing, so we only have some of the most relevant cards. You’ll have to check back as we add more.

Power Consumption: Idle

This chart is for idle power draw on Windows desktop and without any GPU tasks active.

The Intel B580 pulled about 35W when idle at desktop, which is a lot less than the Alchemist GPUs pulled (up at 46W, 45W, and 43W), but it’s still more than everything else. Intel still has an idle power consumption challenge to overcome.

The RX 6600 (watch our review), for example, pulled only 5W through the PCIe slot and PCIe cables when idle, which is impressive. The 6600 XT was similar, at 6.2W. The 4060 is a relevant comparison and far lower in power consumption idle, down at 11W to the B580’s 35W or so.

This is an area Intel will eventually need to improve, but no one will care about its idle power draw if the performance isn’t good enough to warrant a purchase first, so we’ll see if this improves subsequently.

Idle GPU power has been requested by our audience for years, so we’re happy to finally start delivering it with this first look.

Efficiency: Baldur’s Gate 3 (1440p)

The next chart is for Baldur’s Gate 3 efficiency at 1440p, looking at rasterization performance. This is measured in FPS/W, which can be thought of as frames per joule since it’s just frames per second per joules per second. Higher is more efficient here.

FPS/W is easier to understand for most people. In this test, the RTX 4060 Ti has the best FPS/W performance, up at 0.71. The 4060 Ti is about 37% more efficient, meaning its FPS/W score is 37% higher than the Intel B580. This is still a massive generational improvement for Intel, where its A580 previously was way down at 0.31. The B580 scores 68% higher in FPS/W than the A580 and A750. Its total power draw is about 141W here, the same as the 4060 Ti, and so the reason its FPS/W is lower is because its framerate is simply lower. 

The 4060 pulls 126W in this test and has a slightly higher framerate, benefiting on both sides of the equation. We don’t yet have the RX 7600 in this lineup.

Efficiency: FFXIV (1440p)

Now we’ll look at one of the B580’s best case scenarios to balance the last two.

This chart is for Final Fantasy 14 at 1440p, where it did well. The B580 ends up 4th on our list so far at 0.51 FPS/W, ahead of the 7800 XT and behind the 4060.

The RTX 4060 pulled 124W here, putting it at 0.58 FPS/W and almost 14% more efficient than the B580. That’s a good spot for the B580, despite being less efficient and pulling more power at 170W.

The 4060 Ti pulled just 129W, so it didn’t leverage its total power budget, and was 27% more efficient than the B580.

Against the last generation, the B580 is significantly more efficient than the RX 6600 XT, RX 6600, RTX 3060 Ti, and Intel’s own Arc cards. The jump over the A750 is huge, especially since the Titan model has a boosted power budget.

Efficiency: FFXIV (1080p)

At 1080p, the 4090 and 4060 Ti appear the same because the 4090 (watch our review) is completely CPU-bound. It can’t perform any better, but remains in a higher power draw state.

The B580 again ranks as less efficient than the 4060 and more efficient than the 7800 XT and below. The B580 pulled 161W here.

Efficiency: Black Myth Wukong (1080p)

In Black Myth: Wukong at 1080p and without ray tracing, the B580 scored 0.3 FPS/W and pulled 146W, which has it significantly behind the RTX 4060 at 0.4 FPS/W and 121W. The 4090 would rank higher if it could fully stretch its legs.

The B580 is about equal to the 7800 XT again.

Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty (RT, 1080p)

In Phantom Liberty with Ray Tracing and at 1080p, the B580 manages to hold onto its 4th place positioning in our current limited lineup. The lead over the 7800 XT is now a massive 29%, thanks to AMD’s performance issues in this title. The 4060 maintains an advantage of 15% over the B580. What’s clear is that Intel has drastically improved on its A-series performance.

Intel B580 Conclusion

Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!

Intel Battlemage is way better than our experiences with Alchemist. The launch of the A380 and subsequent A750 and A770 cards was plagued with experience-ruining bugs that were unfixable in many cases. This time around, we ran into a couple driver issues, but the only one that completely prevented play was an issue with Cyberpunk and RT Ultra settings, where it’d hard crash. Everything else ran more or less without issue.

This review is long already, so we’ll keep it simple. Here are the key points:

  • We observed that the B580 scales well as resolution increases, especially at 4K and the games that aren’t heavy enough to eliminate it as an option. Unfortunately, the card isn’t so powerful that 4K is playable in a lot of these games, but the behavior was consistent with 1440p as well. 1080p saw a loss of advantage or sometimes a flip with the RTX 4060 or RX 7600.
  • Intel’s frametimes are overall much better and mostly avoid experience-ruining issues in almost all cases. The Battlemage drivers still have some frametime pacing problems in some games and tests and are not overall superior, but have improved enough that, in combination with a low enough price point at $250 and below, they could be overlooked depending on the games you play.
  • Also as a downside, Intel’s idle power consumption remains high. It has improved massively, but is higher than everyone else at idle for the most part.
  • Intel’s efficiency in actual gaming scenarios, at least when those games perform well for it, has improved massively and is competitive with the RX 7800 XT and RTX 4060 in some scenarios.

As the A750 went on massive fire sales previously, we’d sometimes recommend it with heavy caveating. The main one was that we never felt comfortable recommending it for the general mainstream audience as we feared users without troubleshooting experience (or even those who have it, but don’t have secondary GPUs) would find it frustrating when encountering games that simply don’t work. Starfield, for example, just didn’t work at launch on Arc. 

Battlemage has improved on this front. We feel much more comfortable recommending at large. However, we still have one major caveat, which is that this is still only the second true generation of Intel’s modern dGPUs. We fully anticipate that Battlemage will have issues given the thousands of games and millions of hardware and software combinations, and we can’t possibly vet them all. That’s why it’s important to check other reviews. We can only speak for our experiences: In the games we tested and with our software, we encountered only one game-breaking bug, and that was RT Ultra in Cyberpunk, which is likely not particularly playable anyway. It is a valid issue, though. We also had one system hard reset at some point.

Now, on NVIDIA and AMD, such issues would almost never happen at this point. On Intel, this is an improvement from dozens of problems with the Alchemist launch. The issues were so many that we published a bug report detailing over 30 major problems. 

The B580 poses considerable value as compared to the RTX 4060 and RX 7600. It is not always the best and trades with these cards, but is a serious competitor. You have all the numbers. We’d recommend looking through our results and determining if it’s a good fit for your games, but overall, Intel’s improvement is obvious.

The next big thing will be seeing what happens in January with Intel’s competitors.


Montech King 65 Pro Case Review & Benchmarks: Cable Management, Thermals, Noise

3 décembre 2024 à 21:17
Montech King 65 Pro Case Review & Benchmarks: Cable Management, Thermals, Noisejimmy_thang December 3, 2024

We review the Montech King 65 Pro’s build quality, value, design, thermals, and more

The Highlights

  • The Montech King 65 Pro shares tooling with the Montech King 95 Pro case before it
  • The King 65 Pro is not a great thermal performer
  • The actual core of the chassis is good overall
  • Original MSRP: $100
  • Release Date: October 14, 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

Today we’re reviewing the new $100 Montech King 65 Pro. The coolest feature of the case is its side-mount fan tray, which can be released with two screws and pivoted out for easy cable routing or fan and radiator installation. It’s well-designed so that the tray is loosely secured by the cable grommets, which use their chamfered edges to guide it into place in a way that almost feels like there’s a guide wheel.

This dual-chamber case comes with 3 pre-installed fans: 2x 140mm reverse blade ARGB side fans and 1x 120mm ARGB rear fan. Looking around the case, we can find remnants of the King 95. That’s because a lot of this case is the same, but cheaper.

Editor's note: This was originally published on October 14, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing

Mike Gaglione

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Camera

Tim Phetdara
Andrew Coleman

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


But for those of you who have used the King 95, a lot of this case will be familiar: It’s intended to be a cheaper variation of the theme. There are some paneling changes, like the top panel, but a lot of the interior is familiar. 

Because we never formally reviewed the King 95 as it was during our case benchmarking rework, we’ll treat this as the first look at both the 95 and 65 features and review it fully. Since there’s shared tooling, some of the discussion will apply to both.

Let’s get into the review.

Pricing & Alternatives

We’ll start with the competitors in this price range.

Currently, the King 95 Pro is $140 to $150, including its 6x ARGB fans. The non-Pro variant is the same case, but drops to 0 included fans and is currently around $110. At $100, the King 65 Pro swaps some panels but adds 3 fans back. 

Somewhat confusingly, we found Montech’s own King 95 on Newegg for $90 at the time of writing this. They’re calling this a “holiday sale” -- it’s October 10th as we write this and we have absolutely no idea what holiday that is for, maybe “Newegg Needs Money Day,” but the point is that $90 makes it cheaper than the brand new King 65 Pro and may lead to some product cannibalism. Adding 3 fans wouldn’t be that expensive.

In price and ignoring form factor, the King 65 Pro competes with the Lian Li Lancool 207, the $80 case we just reviewed. The Lancool case is a more traditional design, while this is a dual-chamber fishtank, so they have different looks. Lian Li’s Lancool is an excellent thermal performer with some cable management challenges.

The SilverStone 514X is another case around $100 that the King 65 competes with on price, but is totally different on style.

The Phanteks XT Pro Ultra is $80 and comes with 4x 140mm fans in a standard form factor case as well.

As for actual style competition, the Lian Li Vision is currently $130 to $140 and doesn’t include fans, but would match for the general design.

Montech King 95 & King 65 Differences

The King 65 Pro adds a bolted-on front plastic piece to square out the front/bottom of the case. This is in contrast to the curved design of the King 95

Aside from the glass, the top panel also features curved edges as compared to the King 65’s straighter-edge design. The King 65’s top and back side panel also features a more standard mesh ventilation as compared to the King 95’s Hyte-inspired sweeping design. The King 95’s ventilated side panel also features a built-in dust filter, whereas the King 95’s solution does not. 

There are also differences between the fan hubs of both cases. The King 65 features 6 total connections whereas the King 95 Pro has 10 total ports. 

Another difference includes the fact that there are rubber grommets within the King 95 Pro, which are absent from the King 65 Pro. 

Montech King 65 Pro Build Quality & Panels

Those are the key differences. Now we’ll get into build quality and panels of the King 65. A lot of this discussion will also apply to the King 95.

Overall, panel construction quality is good on the King 65, but there are some caveats.

At Computex, we noticed that the front panel was very slightly misaligned with the decorative plate for the I/O side. This is somewhat of a nitpick, but that’s because it’s rarely an issue. 

The cases that we got resolve this issue and have the two front panels level, so that was nice to see. 

The front decorative strip is actually just plastic with a brushed look to sort of fake an aluminum appearance, serving as a cheaper gimmick to emulate the O11D and 6500D (read our review) look.

As a downside, the top metal strip for the supporting backing of the glass front panel was bent up on our black King 65 Pro. We always include damage in our reviews, whether that’s quality control or shipping. This particular damage looks like something that happened at the factory, not in shipping. It could be easily pressed back down with a flat edge.

As a positive, the panel gap between the front and side panel is flush, which wasn’t the case with the show model we saw 5 months ago. Cheaper cases often have problems with panel alignment.

The side panels are secured with thumbscrews, which we always like to see just as a security feature when moving the computer around for cleaning and maintenance. The front panel pops out easily once the side panel is removed.

Like we saw on the Lancool 207, the King 65 uses a reinforced rectangular piece of steel to support the snaps to the frame.

The front corner of the top panel is also relatively strong, unlike the Tryx case, because Montech designed it properly. The Tryx case top panel was caving in not from shipping damage, but from design issues, and we want to make sure that plot doesn’t get twisted because it’s important. The King 65 is relatively stout, which helps reduce the top panel length to provide strength, and is also supported by a more significant anchor to the deeper secondary channel, meaning a lengthier attachment point to serve as a counter support on that front edge.

The top panel itself is of sturdy build and has butted-together steel around the edges to give clearance from the fan rails while adding structural rigidity, but lacks the mesh we saw in the King 95. 

The final side panel is a little floppy from lack of thicker supports, but has no functional downside. It’s also ventilated for air intake through the side. 

Removing that panel, there’s a cable management cover tray with 2x 2.5” SSD mounts in it. Two screws can be removed to hinge the door outward, giving access to the drive mounts and two additional fan mounts with rails in the door. And this is where we get into an area that Montech could improve.

Both sets of fan mounts have heavy obstructions. By accommodating both 120mm and 140mm sizes, Montech needs two sets of mounting points. Unfortunately, in the process of creating these, it has covered up to about 20mm per side of the fan blade, or 40mm total horizontally obstructed. This is a huge amount of intake area loss. Montech could still support two sets of rails, but at least cutting a hole right in the middle would be better -- or even running the rails the entire length of the fan so that there’s some room for air. This is an oversight that likewise extends to the King 95. The King 95 Pro did OK in most of our tests, but falls behind other cases with similar fan count. This is a large contributor to that.

Montech King 65 Pro Cable Management

For cable management, the King 65 continues the trend of including velcro cable ties that secure behind the motherboard tray, which itself is already deep enough to provide functionally limitless cable space. Although we’ve since built in the cases, we liked how the fans were pre-routed and arranged out of the box.

The power supply sits elevated atop a rubber-damped pad, providing clearance on all sides while hopefully absorbing vibration that could cause noise. Although the exterior of the hard drive cage has rubber dampers, the drive sleds themselves do not. If supporting 3.5” drives, we’d like to see rubber dampers at the contact points where the drive meets the plastic or metal. 

Access is through the rear for drive installation, which mostly makes things easier. They aren’t hot-swap cages with pre-wired backplanes or anything fancy like that, but the rear access does make things easy to get to.

As for radiator, GPU, and fan support, it’s the same as the King 95 Pro: Montech’s GPU support is up to 420mm long, so basically any video card, and radiator support is up to 280mm or 360mm top, 140 or 240mm side, and 175mm tall air coolers.

Montech King 65 Pro Thermal Benchmarks

Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!

CPU Thermals: Noise-Normalized

We’ll start with noise-normalized CPU thermals under a full torture workload.

Unfortunately for the King 65 Pro, it’s the new worst result on the charts. These fans just aren’t powerful enough to provide the cooling necessary, and likewise, extra noise created by paneling choices, such as the sharper angles and the obstructions, leads to a need to reduce speed to normalize for noise.

The King 65 Pro lands at 57.6 degrees over ambient for average P-core temperature, putting it behind even the Hyte Y60 (watch our review) in the baseline setup.

The Antec C8 runs about 3 degrees cooler, which is significant, although it carries a $50 premium. The same-priced Silverstone 514X (read our review) runs about 6 degrees cooler with its own stock fans. The Flux Pro (read our review) does well here, but costs $80 more than the King 65 Pro, so it’s not a fair comparison. We know, that’s hard to believe since they’re both pros.

The Lancool 207 is $20 cheaper than the King 65 Pro though and manages to completely dominate it on this chart. At 44.5 degrees, it’s not even close. The King 65 Pro is just not a great thermal performer.

The King 95 Pro with the glass front ran at 50 degrees over ambient, which is over a 7 degree reduction without even using mesh. That’s a lot of impact from the extra fans and panel changes.

GPU Thermals: Noise-Normalized

Here are the GPU thermals for the same noise-normalized test.

The King 65 Pro gets destroyed here. It is not only at the absolute bottom of the chart, but it’s several degrees worse than the previous worst: The FARA 515XR set the floor at 54 degrees over ambient previously, with the King 65 Pro at 57 degrees over ambient. For GPU testing, that’s a big swing. The GPU is not normally as sensitive to the case changes as the CPU in our tests.

The $150 Antec C8 (read our review) is an impressive 15 degrees better than the King 65 Pro. The $80 Lancool 207 is also about 15-16 degrees better than the $100 King 65 Pro.

Standardized Fans: CPU Thermals

The next test is where we pull all the included fans and swap them for 3 standardized fans. Some cases are worsened by this, as we’re removing more abundant or better fans; however, this is useful for evaluating changes to the chassis structure itself. 

As a perfect example: The King 95 and King 65 are suddenly exact equals when we swap to the same fans and positions. They’re within 0.4 degrees of each other for P-core average performance, which is impressive. That’s a testament to our new methodology and is great to see.

The Antec C8 with comparable side intake lands at 46 degrees, outperforming the King 65 and King 95 alike. Because we’ve normalized to the same fans and in the same positions, we can confidently state that the King 65 and King 95 have paneling that obstructs the fans enough to worsen performance. Montech could boost itself by changing its porosity and all the small obstructions to airflow that add up, like those earlier rails we discussed.

Standardized Fans: GPU Thermals

GPU thermals when using standardized fans are also within roughly 1-degree ranges between the King 95 and King 65. The curvature of the glass theoretically should help improve air access to the GPU, but this gets into areas where we’d need CFD to know for certain. Regardless, at about 1-degree difference, they’re functionally the same.

The Antec C8 with side intake again climbs ahead, up at 42 degrees for GPU temperature against 44.6 on the King 65.

CPU Thermals: Full Speed

Back to the included stock fans and at 100% fan speeds, the King 65 Pro landed at 37.8 dBA as tested in our hemi-anechoic chamber, aligning it most comparably with the Antec C8 ARGB, which was 37.11dBA. That’s the same noise level.

The C8 outperforms the King 65 even with both at full fan speed, at 49 degrees to 54 for the average P-core temperature. The cheaper FARA 514X is quieter than both, at an impressive 35 dBA and 47 degrees over ambient. The Lancool 207 sounds more like a vacuum cleaner at 41.6 dBA when running at full speeds, but pushes to 41.6 degrees over ambient.

VRM Thermals: Noise-Normalized

Noise-normalized VRM and RAM thermals position the King 65 Pro at 36 degrees for the VRM and 26 for the RAM. These results have it toward the bottom of the chart, though better than the Hyte Y60 with its stock configuration. Both the VRM and RAM thermals are completely acceptable, it’s just that it isn’t as competitive.

Montech King 65 Pro Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Thermally, the Montech King 65 Pro is just not impressive. It can’t overcome the limitation it has on its panel and case design. Its 3 moderate fans are just not sufficient for it to get anywhere impressive on our thermal charts and it’s at the bottom of some of those charts.

In terms of build quality, in some places, it’s pretty good. The actual core of the chassis is good overall. There’s a lot of space to work with the cabling. There’s also some cool features like the side-mount fan tray, which is also on the King 95 Pro. Overall, the build and panel quality are fine. It’s just that at $100, it has to be really competitive and one of the things it's competing against is the King 95 Pro without any included fans. 

This makes it hard to recommend the case in any one category. Overall, the King 65 Pro is okay. We don’t hate it, but against standard form factor cases like the Lancool 207 or even the FARA 514X, which we weren’t thrilled about but we thought was fine, those are better options at this price. They are also better thermal performers, though the King 65 Pro is certainly a lot easier to build in than the 207

In terms of other competition, the Antec C8 is similar in design to the King 65 Pro, but it’s wider and its non ARGB variant without fans is similarly priced.

Within $20 plus or minus of the King 65 Pro, the case kind of gets its ass kicked in either direction thermally.


Best PC Cases of 2024: $80 to $800 Airflow, Cable Management, & Thermal Leaders

27 novembre 2024 à 22:32
Best PC Cases of 2024: $80 to $800 Airflow, Cable Management, & Thermal Leadersjimmy_thang November 27, 2024

Our best cases round-up is back! We're looking at the best gaming PC cases for 2024, ranging from $80 to $800 and covering all aspects of custom PC building.

The Highlights

  • Best Overall Case 2024: Fractal North & North XL
  • Best Mechanical Design Case: HAVN HS 420
  • Best Sub-$100 Case: Lian Li Lancool 207
  • Best Mid-Range Case: Antec C8 ARGB
  • Best Noise-Normalized Case Thermals: Antec Flux Pro

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Intro

We’re looking at the best cases available right now. 

We broke back into case reviews this year and have added to our case collection. This round-up highlights the best cases we think are available in 2024 based on our thermal benchmarks, acoustic tests, build quality evaluation, and cable management testing.

This year was packed with excellent cases -- but of course, a few that were really problematic as well.

Editor's note: This was originally published on November 21, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Writing

Patrick Lathan

Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


Setting Expectations

Welcome back to the Best Of Round-Up series. These are our favorite pieces to run annually and help you quickly get back into PC components if you haven’t been paying attention, but also give us a reason to go back through all the cases we’ve tested recently and remember what was the best. 

These are meant to be more of a fly-over story in the round-up series to help simplify and highlight the key points. If you want the full in-depth reviews with all the nuance, check the links in the description below. We’ve linked each case review and have also provided all the usual affiliate links with them.

We already published Best CPUs and the same thing applies here: Sometimes, the best case or CPU in 2024 might be something that launched in a previous year. We look at the total market and what the best options are now, not just what launched this year. As a reminder as well, we took about a year off of case reviews in 2023, so we launched back into it heavy this year and we’re excited to be back to the Best Of series for something positive.

Let’s get into it.

Overview: Best PC Cases for 2024

CategoryCaseReview
Best Overall Case 2024Fractal North
on Amazon
on Newegg

Fractal North XL
on Amazon
on Newegg
Excellent Design: Fractal North Case Review & Benchmarks

Fractal North XL Case Review & Benchmarks: Wood Panels & Mesh
Best Mechanical DesignHAVN HS 420
on Amazon
A New Type of Computer Case | HAVN HS 420 Thermal Benchmarks & Review
Best Sub-$100 CaseLian Li Lancool 207
on Amazon
on Newegg
Lian Li Lancool 207 Airflow Case Review | Cable Management, Build Quality, & Benchmarks
Best Mid-Range CaseAntec C8 ARGB
on Amazon
on Newegg
Surprisingly Good: Antec C8 ARGB Case Review, Thermals, Cable Management, & Noise
Best Out-of-the-Box Case ThermalsLian Li Lancool 207
on Amazon
on Newegg

Antec Flux Pro
on Amazon
on Newegg
Lian Li Lancool 207 Airflow Case Review | Cable Management, Build Quality, & Benchmarks

Best Case of 2024 So Far: Antec Flux Pro Review & Benchmarks
Best Noise-Normalized Case ThermalsAntec Flux Pro
on Amazon
on Newegg
Best Case of 2024 So Far: Antec Flux Pro Review & Benchmarks
Most Innovative CaseMeshless AIOA Better Computer Fan - Sometimes: Cross-Flow Meshless AIO Case Benchmarks & Review
Biggest Disappointment CaseCorsair 6500 Series
on Amazon
on Newegg
Corsair Forgot How to Make a Case: 6500D Airflow & 6500X Review

Best Overall Case 2024: Fractal North & North XL

Fractal North: Original review | Newegg | Amazon

Fractal North XL: Original review | Newegg | Amazon

Awarding the best overall case is difficult this year, which is a good problem to have -- that means cases don’t suck. This category requires a strong offering on all fronts: Value, thermal performance, acoustic performance, aesthetics, build quality, ease-of-installation features, and cable management.

We’re giving it to the Fractal North & North XL. Although other cases are superior in some individual situations, like the Antec Flux Pro (by a slim margin) in thermals or the HAVN HS 420 in mechanical aspects, the North and North XL are masterful executions of a standard computer case.

This is bolstered by prices that have been lower in recent weeks, typically down around $125 to $140 for the North (watch our review).

The Fractal North was the first case to successfully kick-off the wooden trend at scale, with everyone else in the industry scrambling to follow. InWin gets credit for initially attempting this years ago, but it failed to find a way to bring it to market and execute. Fractal pulled it all together and cleaned up the idea.

The North comes with either a glass or mesh side panel, which includes options for additional side mounts to further boost cooling performance. Actually, in our recent tour of Wendell’s offices, you can see such a configuration for one of his machines.

Fractal’s fan support on the XL is also effectively whatever you want it to be: The company cleverly uses standard hole spacing for its rear ventilation (and even PCIe slot covers and top of the power supply shroud) so that you could mount a fan basically anywhere you want in the case. The cooling options are really opened up because of this. 

Ease-of-installation options are also great: Because the top panel so easily slides off to remove, and because Fractal doesn’t put a ton of other metal in the way, you can get clear access through the top of the case for builds. The extra width in the XL also makes larger radiators easier to work with up top, reducing board clearance issues.

The North XL (read our review) is what we prefer to the North, mostly for its increased size for easier building and for our style of build, but both are good takes on the theme. Visually, the wood look doesn’t look like the slapped-on Vinyl style we see in other cases. It looks more purposeful. Fractal also does great work mixing different tone wood coloring with different panel coloring, including matching the black case with gold accents and the white case with silver accents.

And finally, even in cooling performance, the North XL is routinely at the top of the charts for thermal benchmarks. It’s not the best -- that’ll go to two other cases this year -- but it’s regularly at the top, and that plus all the other features, plus the value, get the North cases the Best Overall award.

Best Mechanical Design: HAVN HS 420

Original review | Amazon

Runner-Up: SilverStone Alta D1

Original preview | Amazon

The next award is for the Best Mechanical Design, which we give to cases that may not have won in other categories, but truly innovated for the physical and mechanical elements of the case.

This year, it goes to newcomer HAVN and their HS 420. The HS 420 (read our review) exhibits a mastery of mechanical features.

The HS 420 doesn't include fans, it's not fully airflow-focused, and it isn't cheap at $200 for the horizontal GPU model. That makes it a tough fit for our price- and performance-focused award categories, but it needs to be recognized, because it's one of the most interesting and downright good cases that we've reviewed this year.

Mechanically, it’s excellent. The curved tempered glass panel is the most significant feature. The panel is installed by sliding it back and down into the case on plastic wheels, where it then comes to rest on the bottom edge of the chassis. It takes some getting used to, but it's a clever and secure way of getting the huge glass pane seated. It's also proven to be durable, surviving multiple build/unbuild cycles through the filming process without serious wear.

There was a lot of thought put into airflow, something we illustrated in animations. The HS 420 VGPU includes a curved glass deflector that's intended to direct incoming air around and into vertically-mounted GPUs. It was a clever idea and a fresh approach, which we appreciated, but it did not help performance in our test system. That’s also why we're specifically giving the award to the $200 base model, which is cheaper and sheds the hardware that didn’t do much. 

Even with the base model, though, HAVN planned for an unusual airflow pattern with intake at the bottom of the rear panel and exhaust at the top of the same panel, and included 120mm plates on each mount that are isolated with rubber vibration damping. In fact, every fan tray is padded with rubber, including the side mount that doubles as drive storage. The drive storage alone is pretty cool. It creates a spine-like structure that can be removed for more fans.

The case's construction is clever and precise in areas like the tightly-spaced storage bays at the front and the rounded edges of the PSU shroud and motherboard tray. The simple GPU support that ships with the non-VGPU case variant is one of the sturdiest we've seen, cast from solid metal and braced against the PSU shroud. The cable channels are not only labeled, but color-coded in what is an excellent feature, as it helps new builders understand where to route cables.

There are a ton of other small attention-to-detail elements, like the fact that HAVN matched the structural reinforcement for the panels to align with fan hubs, or the dead zone, rather than obstructing air intake. You can check our review for all the other details, including our full charts with 7 or 8 different fan configurations.

Before closing out this category, we want to give some recognition to SilverStone's ALTA D1. The ALTA D1 is an $800 halo product that's finally hit retail following our first encounter with it at Computex 2023 and again at Computex 2024. The price is ridiculous and very few people will buy the case, but the mechanical design hopefully inspires some more affordable cases: It has modular bays on rails everywhere, including 5.25" drive support, socketable radiators, a slide-out motherboard tray, SSI-EEB support, 11 expansion slots, large fan mounts, repositionable power supplies, and a true home server setup. It's beyond what we could recommend in a serious review if only for the price, but we may come up with a fun project for the ALTA D1 in the future and we respect its mechanical design.

Best Sub-$100 Case: Lian Li Lancool 207

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

We’ve had a category for years for the “Best Budget Case,” but the amount of quality cases in the $60 price point and under has really declined in recent years. Honestly, at or below $60 right now, we think used cases are typically a far better deal than something new at the same price.

So this category has become Best Sub-$100 case, which we’re giving to the Lian Li Lancool 207

There were a lot of cases to consider for this category: When we were deciding this year's winners, although there are a lot of sub-$100 cases, there just aren’t any that defeat the Lian Li Lancool 207 (read our review). In the current market, $80 is dirt cheap for a name-brand case: there are cheaper cases available from companies like SAMA and DIYPC, but we're confident that none of them come close to the Lancool 207's frequently chart-topping thermal performance.

When we reviewed the SilverStone 515XR, we were aware that SilverStone had pulled out all the stops to offer a case with four fans at $68, but the performance gap between it and the 207 is massive. There’s also differences in quality-of-life features. 

The same goes for the Phanteks XT Pro Ultra and the Montech XR. Both cases have been added to our charts recently. The Montech XR is supposed to be closer to $60, but has been out of stock lately and often more expensive when it is available.

The Lancool 207 is a solidly-built case with sturdy toolless panels, which is unusual at this price point. The most unusual aspect, though, is at the bottom of the case, where two 120mm intake fans are positioned directly underneath the GPU, while the PSU is mounted at the front with an extension cord. The shroud is ventilated on both sides as well as the rear in order to provide an airflow path for the bottom intake fans (although adding drives and cables to the case reduces that ventilation, but the ample intake through the rear counters this). In addition to the two bottom intake fans, 2x 140mm ARGB front intake fans are included with the case. 

They may not sound significant individually, but the fact that the 207 has a full suite of basic quality of life features like reusable (and bridgeless) expansion slot covers, rubber grommets for cable cutouts, a USB Type-C port, ARGB fans, built-in velcro straps, and toolless panels is impressive in combination with its price and thermal performance. It's rare to see that full combo in a case, especially one which is also a top thermal performer. The fact that the 207 also wins our objective, numbers-based Best Thermals category is also part of why it lands here.

We have two big issues with the 207: first, the toolless side panel won't stay on without meticulous cable management. There's no way around this, but sticking to flat cables and minimizing the number of cables used will help. There's also room to improve PSU cooling in the case, as most PSUs will be oriented fan-side-down with barely any clearance above the table surface. The cable management is the one to be aware of. You can watch our review for more on that.

Still, at $80, Lian Li is being brutally competitive.

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Best Mid-Range Case: Antec C8 ARGB

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

Next up is the award for the Best Mid-Range case. We’re looking for something that isn’t too wild or out there. We want relatively standard, but a good price-to-performance and overall build quality. We’re also looking for something a little bit better than the budget case. For this, we’re giving it to the Antec C8 ARGB.

Antec has had a strong year. It had 2 showings this year in our list we have today, but it was the Antec C8 that first signaled to us that the company was worth paying attention to again after a decade of fading into irrelevance. 

MSRP is $150 for the ARGB variant with fans included, but it's been long enough since the case's June launch that we're beginning to see discounts. The fan-less variant is regularly available with promo codes around $100. 

This mid-range award category gives us some room to consider quality of life and aesthetic features, not just raw performance-per-dollar, and the C8 is well-balanced in those categories.

The C8's dual chamber layout isn’t new, but Antec impressed us with the level of care that it put into details like molding text into the fan frames, color-matching all the components in the white SKU, and the accessory kit. Small touches, even ones that aren't functional, add up to create a product that feels worth the price. The C8's appearance reminds us of the clean designs that made Corsair's 4000D Airflow (and 5000D, and 7000D, et cetera) so appealing, but we much prefer Antec's case to the directly comparable Corsair 6500D Airflow.

Functionally, the usual benefits of dual-chamber design apply: there's plenty of space to work with in both chambers, including storage space for cables and drives. Dual chamber cases frequently have cable channels so deep that it's difficult to reach tie points at the bottom and effectively bundle cables, but the C8's removable "air duct partition" solves that problem.

The centerpiece of the C8 ARGB (read our review) is the bottom fan mount, containing two unusual 160mm x 35mm reverse-blade intake fans (with an additional conventional 140mm exhaust fan at the rear of the case). These two 160mm fans are placed over a completely open vent, meaning that the removable bottom filter is the only obstruction to incoming air. Antec was aware enough to not obstruct this intake path, unlike many other companies. 

This makes GPU cooling in the C8 ARGB excellent, although CPU cooling with our test setup was predictably lackluster due to the lack of front or side intake.

We prefer the C8 ARGB to the fanless base model, but the less expensive SKU may make more sense for liquid-cooled builds since the ARGB's 160mm stock fans won't match any normal radiator. The case can fit up to 3x 360mm radiators simultaneously, most easily in the side and bottom slots. For air cooled builds, the $20 upcharge for the ARGB variant with the extra fans is worth it. Many of the dual-chamber cases we've reviewed have followed in the footsteps of the O11 Dynamic by not including any stock fans, so having a choice is a welcome change.

Best Out-of-the-Box Case Thermals (Lian Li Lancool 207, Antec Flux Pro)

Lian Li Lancool 207 original review | Newegg | Amazon

Antec Flux Pro original review | Newegg | Amazon

Our next two awards are for thermals. The next one is for Best Noise-Normalized Thermals, while this one is for Best Out-of-the-Box Thermals. The difference is that noise-normalized is focused on one category, whereas Best Thermals looks for the best performer in all tests we ran and at all fan speeds.

The raw all-fans-maxed stock performance is a tie between the Lian Li Lancool 207, represented in the sub $100 category, and Antec Flux Pro, which is represented in the next category. These cases have similar layouts, each with front intake fans behind a mesh panel and bottom intake fans mounted on top of a ventilated PSU shroud. Our test bench hardware uses air cooling with a flow-through GPU cooler and a CPU tower cooler, which we've chosen to be as broadly representative as possible and as controllable as possible. This hardware benefits from simple, direct airflow: cool air from the front for the CPU, cool air from the bottom for the GPU. These two cases are the ideal realization of that airflow pattern.

The Flux Pro and Lancool 207 both averaged 38 degrees Celsius above ambient all-core and 42 degrees on just the P-cores. Fractal's Torrent and North XL are both within one degree of this result, but the Flux Pro (read our review) and 207 pull slightly ahead in other categories.

Moving to GPU thermals, both the Flux Pro and the Lancool 207 averaged exactly 38.2 degrees above ambient, although the 207's memory temperature averaged slightly better at 41 degrees versus 43, while the Flux Pro's hotspot temperature was a little lower. The Flux Pro's stock configuration is set up to mount the PSU rotated 90 degrees in Antec's "iShift" mount, but we found that mounting the PSU in a more typical orientation with the plug at the rear of the case slightly lowered overall GPU temperatures for a best-case 37 degree delta above ambient.

The 207, on the other hand, logged our best temperatures so far from the VRM and RAM sensors at 21 and 17 degrees above ambient respectively. These two cases are extremely close in performance, and we can't declare just one winner between the two of them.

Best Noise-Normalized Case Thermals: Antec Flux Pro

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

The next award is for Best Noise-Normalized Thermals. This is a pure performance-driven category, but it combines 2 metrics, which is acoustics and thermals. Fortunately, its winner is also just a good standard case to build in: The Antec Flux Pro.

Noise-normalized thermal tests are the most important performance benchmarks we run on cases. With the current iteration of our bench, we place the case on a table in our hemi-anechoic chamber with a mic pointed directly at the center of the front panel from one meter away. Then, we lower the speed of the case's stock fans in tandem until we hit our chosen threshold of 27 dBA SPL. This allows us to level the playing field so that the cases with the loudest fans don't automatically land at the top of every single chart by brute force. It creates a control.

The Flux Pro's front panel doesn't block much noise, but it's so well-ventilated that the three 140mm front intake fans don't need to work hard and don’t generate much noise to begin with. There isn’t much resistance and so they can spin slower, while the 2x 120mm shroud-top fans assist GPU cooling. The Flux Pro's PSU shroud is open on all sides, including the bottom, which maximizes airflow without directing significantly more noise towards our mic.

CPU thermals are tied at the top of the chart with the Lancool 207 at 41 degrees Celsius above ambient all-core and 45 degrees on just the P-cores. Some of our other high-performing cases like the North XL and Torrent come close, and the Lian Li Lancool 216 (watch our review) is tied in this one, but the Flux Pro is the best overall when taking all results into account. 

In the noise-normalized GPU thermal test, it outperforms the Lancool 207 and ties the Torrent (watch our review) for GPU die temperature. 

In VRM and DDR5 memory thermals, the Flux Pro is the chart leader by a technicality, but again is functionally tied with the 207. Both the Flux Pro and 207 offer excellent cooling at the noise levels, but the Flux Pro technically takes more lead spots than the 207. But the 207 is well-represented already.

We also know from our full speed results that it's possible that the Flux Pro could perform even better with its PSU mounted in the typical orientation rather than the stock rotated iShift mount.

The Flux Pro was an excellent return to form for Antec and offers a standard layout case for strong fundamentals. It is deserving of the Noise-Normalized victory while still offering the basics and foundation required for a good standard PC build in a non dual chamber case.

Most Innovative Case: Meshless AIO

Original review 

Honorable Mention: InWin Dubili

Newegg | Amazon

Our Most Innovative Case award goes to the case that has the newest and most different design, even if it doesn't work perfectly, because innovation pushes this industry forward. This goes to the Meshless AIO Mini-ITX case.

Despite its generic, boxy exterior, the Meshless AIO (read our review) is one of the most innovative cases we've ever reviewed.

The Meshless AIO (now apparently listed with a formal launch name as the “MD280”) is built around a cylindrical crossflow fan, like a smaller version of the fan in a mini-split wall unit. We found the case design curious enough that we built this 3D animation to help explain and educate on how these work. The basics are that the crossflow fan shoots hot air out at the upper edge of the side panel, and theoretically pulls cool air in everywhere else: towards the GPU fans from the side panel, through the radiator, and over the motherboard and PSU from a tiny strip of ventilation along the bottom edge of the case. In practice, we found that the GPU was better cooled by taping a couple of normal 120mm case fans to the top of the case, but these had other downsides in other tests. 

Thermal performance was at least adequate, and considering there was a single fan handling everything, overall impressive for what was done on a single fan that you might not normally find in a PC case. We were concerned about the PSU's lack of direct access to cool air, but otherwise, everything was getting fed air.

There are some other creative aspects to the MD280’s construction outside of the fan: the main portion of the case is a single piece of extruded aluminum, and other elements like the fan, radiator, glass side panel, and handle slide into the open ends. This is an excellent and compact design that works well. Another cool feature is the lever that’s accessible from the rear of the case, working to slide the PCIe riser cable up and down. It presses the slot into place to improve accessibility. It's an ambitious and creative project, especially since Meshless Design informed us that it's an independent outfit driven by one man: Hank Lin. This is the work of an engineer who turned an idea into an actual product with overall good execution.

We need to issue a buyer beware warning here: it looks like the Meshless AIO's price has been increased to at least $450, a big jump from what we were expecting, and we have no way of vouching for the company's ability to deliver on pre-orders. Unfortunately, that price kills the case for us, as there are simply too many other good competitors in ITX at half the price. 

But it still gets an innovation award.

We have an Honorable Mention for this category as well: InWin’s Dubili ATX case. Dubili is an anagram of iBuild, an abbreviation for InWin's DIY "iBuild iShare" brand, as well as an abbreviation of "Do Believe." The instruction manual comes in the form of a dedicated single-purpose app with animated 3D renders, which is absolutely required if you order the flat-packed build-it-yourself DIY edition. We like the Dubili for its unique look, high-quality build and materials, and the modularity of the paneling. That it flat packs is also a cool aspect to the case, creating a fuller DIY experience. The color scheme is also different: A sharp silver-and-orange or a Noctua-style cream-and-brown with gold screws. The case doesn’t win over the Meshless AIO, but we like it enough that it deserves a mention.

Grab a GN15 All-Over Print Component Mouse Mat for a high-quality mousing surface that'll fit your keyboard & mouse. These mouse mats use a high-quality yellow rubber underside, a blue stitched border for fray resistance, and are covered in PC parts. This is the best way to support our work and keeps us ad-free to support consumer-first reviews!

Biggest Disappointment Case: Corsair 6500 Series

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

The Biggest Disappointment is up next. There are a lot of options to consider for this category: Between the GameMax HYPE (read our review), the Tryx LUCA L70, the Corsair 6500, and more. We had our work cut out for us.

The award goes to Corsair for the 6500 series of cases. Although Tryx’s case was a mess, it ultimately doesn’t have the same expectations attached to it as Corsair. To be a disappointment requires some level of expectation.

Corsair wins the award handily: Broadly speaking, Corsair has continued to disappoint ever since it took on huge investment. Like the assets of its corporate overlords, its disappointments are diversified: They bought Origin, which sold us a $6,600 computer that had the CPU underclocked by 1GHz out of the box; they made the A500 air cooler, which had heatpipes so unlevel they sheared our pressure paper. But the company also shipped some excellent products in recent years, and those came from its case division.

The Corsair 4000D (watch our review) was commonly $80 and one of the best sub-$100 cases available for a while. The 5000D (watch our review) was an OK follow-up to that, scaling-up the useful features to a larger size. Corsair was finally doing well with cases again, following a long drought of basically nothing.

But then it launched the 6500 (read our review) series this year, attempting to jump onto a hype train that had already left the station, and doing so with substandard build quality. The Corsair 6500D and 6500X were $200 without fans, both featuring superbly bendy panels without any reinforcement -- which we found totally unacceptable for a $200 so-called “Premium” case. There were lots of plastics, misaligned panels, and build quality issues. 

The 6500D had a number of slapped-on features that didn’t work together. They tried to accommodate back-connect motherboards, but doing so required punching what seems like a completely random hole into a drive cage, which was then entirely left out of the original manual. If you used one of Corsair’s own SHIFT power supplies, you’d have to remove the drive cages completely and move to only NVMe drives. We found build quality issues, design oversight, and a high price to be not only disqualifying from any considerations on our lists, but also deserving of the Biggest Disappointment after falling from the grace of the 4000D.

Corsair is a big company and has the resources to fix this, but it’s a matter of whether they choose to.

Since our critical review, Corsair has dropped the price of the 6500D closer to $150. It’s still worse than an Antec C8 ARGB, which often costs the same or less.


One of the Best Pre-Built PCs We've Reviewed: $1700 Thermaltake Vista 470M

16 janvier 2025 à 18:13
One of the Best Pre-Built PCs We've Reviewed: $1700 Thermaltake Vista 470Mjimmy_thang January 16, 2025

We examine Thermaltake’s Vista 470M’s build quality, value, software, power, thermals, acoustics, and more

The Highlights

  • Our build came with an 7800X3D, 4070 Super, and Thermaltake View 380 case
  • Out unit had 2 loose RGB headers and a slightly bent pin
  • The Thermaltake Vista 470M is a surprisingly good pre-built PC
  • Original MSRP: $1,700 (approximately)
  • Release Date: October 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

Between rental PCs, pre-built disasters, and just bad value, we’ve had a hard time finding good pre-builts over the last few years. We specifically went hunting to actively try and find one of the better mainstream options on the market. 
We bought the Thermaltake Vista 470M for around $1,700 and, surprisingly, it’s actually pretty good. This system has an AMD 7800X3D, which is already a huge improvement on most SIs still offering primarily Intel from some prehistoric marketing collaborations. It’s also priced reasonably.

Editor's note: This was originally published on December 19, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Video Editing

Mike Gaglione

Testing, Writing

Jeremy Clayton

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


We’ve never looked at a Thermaltake pre-built before, but they’ve been building them for a few years now. This one just launched at the start of October. It’s the Vista 470M, from the LCGS (Liquid Cooled Gaming System) brand of custom and pre-built PCs.

It’s got reasonable pricing and mostly good build quality. That “mostly” is because despite overall great cable management, Thermaltake managed to seriously bend one of the RGB connections to the motherboard – that’s one way to keep the terrible lock-lacking 4-pin from going anywhere, unintentional as this is. The system is also running relatively slow RAM, but sadly, in the prebuilt world, these types of complaints are relatively minor.

But in spite of this, we actually kind of like this system. That’s probably the highest praise we’ve given a prebuilt other than the Starforge systems we’ve looked at. Maybe that should be our new award category: The highly sought-after “We Actually Kind of Like It” award.

Thermaltake Vista 470M Overview

Marketing is normally loaded with memes, so we’ll start there:

“Embrace the exhilarating promise of domination,” Thermaltake says in surprisingly tame marketing cringe, and that’s about it. The rest of the language is pretty normal: Talk of completing a battle station, edge-to-edge glass, the usual MDF-fueled NVIDIA and AMD branding, and talk of the components. Shockingly, the only thing on this page that was worth making fun of was the exhilarating promise of domination. Once again, for a pre-built, this is already one of the more professional listings.

In the past, we’ve seen Corsair’s no-fewer-than 6 assorted “uncompromised” claims on a PC that embodied the very definition of compromise, so this is good from Thermaltake.

As we write this, Thermaltake is only offering its 470M in the Matcha Green colorway of the dual-chamber View 380 case. There aren't any other options if you don’t like it, but at the very least, it’s a unique color.

Thermaltake Vista 470M Pricing

Pricing for the 470M is pretty good, especially compared to some of the more expensive prebuilts we’ve looked at recently. Here’s the breakdown. We put together a pricing table for the components at the time we bought the system. This doesn’t reflect the newest prices in December, but is from when we actually purchased it.

Thermaltake Vista 470M Part and Price Breakdown | GamersNexus

Part NameDIY Equivalent PartDIY Part Price
CPUAMD Ryzen 7 7800X3DIdentical$476
CPU CoolerThermaltake 240mm CLCIdentical$80
MotherboardASRock B650M-CASRock B650M PG Lightning Wifi$120
Memory32GB DDR5-560032GB DDR5-6000$85
Storage1TB M.2 Gen4 SSDIdentical$55
GPUNVIDIA RTX 4070 SuperIdentical$590
CaseThermaltake View 380 ARGBIdentical$100
Power SupplyThermaltake Toughpower GX3 850WIdentical$85
Price$1,700DIY Price~$1600

There’s only about $100 of upcharge over DIY part cost, with the usual fluctuations of the DIY market. We think that’s completely reasonable, especially if you value saving time and don’t care as much about assembling it yourself. At the depths of sales, you might find about $200 to $250, but even that is a good price: Starforge was typically around $400 to $650 cost over DIY, with iBUYPOWER and CyberPower typically about $100 to $400, depending on model. 

As always, you could find greater savings by totally swapping some of the components in this list, but we try to compare exact part-for-part in these pricing tables.

It’s not perfect though. The launch of the higher-performing 9800X3D (read our review) at the same price as what the 7800X3D has been available for recently casts somewhat of a shadow on the overall value, but the 7800X3D (watch our review) is still a strong 2nd place in almost all of our gaming tests. Part of the pricing may be explained by Thermaltake getting the remains of the 7800X3D that has become suddenly less desirable.

The DDR5-5600 RAM is also, unfortunately, a terrible choice, given that the “sweet spot” for AM5 is at 6000MT/s and it’s essentially universally compatible across all of the current CPUs. 

It doesn’t even really cost more at this point to get better RAM -- the pricing is similar.

Thermaltake accidentally benefits from the higher cache on the X3D CPU helping to brute force and make up for some of that weaker RAM choice.

The motherboard and power supply are on the lower end, but don’t cross over into truly cheap territory. Also, since it’s 850W, the possibility of a future GPU upgrade is there. 

And because you own the system, unlike NZXT’s envisioned nightmarish dystopian hellscape that is its rental program, you could upgrade it with whatever you wanted.

The ASRock B650M-C is a commercial variant of a consumer board, but thankfully has a publicly accessible support page with BIOS and drivers. This is a huge improvement over what we’ve seen in the past, including Corsair using commercial variant boards without any public BIOS maintenance.

Overall, the parts choice and pricing are better than a lot of the pre-builts we’ve looked at.

Let’s get into the tear-down next.

Thermaltake Vista 470M Tear-Down

Removing a single screw on top of the case allows you to remove the case's side panel.

The backside cabling of the 470M is incredibly clean and reveals a non-modular PSU, which goes to show Thermaltake’s high quality cable management. 

The company hid cables at the bottom of the case behind a cover, which makes sense.

The main interior of the build has a clean assembly, though we did notice 2 loose RGB headers with one of them having a bent pin. It still worked, but that isn’t great.

Thankfully, we didn’t notice any loose screws, which is pretty rare to see.

Our 470M used a lower quality 450-watt 12VHPWR cable for its GPU. Fortunately the GPU in our system, a 4070 Super (read our review), won’t pull something higher like 600 watts, but this will prevent GPU upgrade options, like the 4090 (watch our review). So that’s not great and we would have preferred a 600-watt solution.

With the CPU cooler removed, the paste on the processor looks okay. There was one corner which could have used a little more thermal paste. We can also see there was a lot of force applied to it. Thermally, it was fine in our testing. 

Back to the system review. All of this testing was completed prior to the tear-down.

BIOS, OS Setup, and Software

The BIOS didn’t have any negative surprises, and was set to stock values outside of EXPO being turned on, which is good. This should be the norm, but because companies fail at enabling EXPO and XMP so frequently, it actually becomes the mark of a prodigal system integrator. That’s a sad statement, but experience has unfortunately set low expectations. The only strange thing was the date being set to January 31, 2024, which was easily fixed. The CMOS battery did not seem to be faulty. It just looked to be misconfigured. 

There was nothing else to mention in BIOS, which is good.

Windows setup was normal, thankfully devoid of any third-party software agreements deceptively tacked on at the end. Booting into Windows was clean, without any pop-up app assault. The desktop had a screenshot of a Superposition benchmark result, indicating the system was probably tested prior to packaging. Having a result stored locally for the customer is excellent, as it offers a means to calibrate against the expectation and gives customer support a way to help direct the consumer to a performance gauge.

The only additional software on the system was the ASRock RGB utility, which provides some functionality. There was no bloatware otherwise: No Norton or McAfee, no BS gaming services, and just a clean OS.

The pre-installed NVIDIA graphics driver was version 565.90 from October 1, less than a week prior to our original order date and only three days before the 470M even went on sale. This is awesome to see: Thermaltake might be better about getting the latest version into its builds than some other SIs we’ve looked at – it’s hard to definitively say with only a single data point, but other systems we’ve reviewed have sometimes had very outdated drivers, upwards of 3 or 4 months out of date, which isn’t good.

As a downside: There was a missing driver in Device Manager. Research showed it’s AMD’s 3D V-cache driver. It should be installed but disabled with the 7800X3D. We would like to see it installed, but Thermaltake lucked into the fact that this is a single CCD CPU, so this wasn’t disastrous. It absolutely shouldn’t be missing, but Thermaltake would only truly suffer for it if this were a dual-CCD solution with 3D cache.

Altogether, Thermaltake did a great job with providing a clean BIOS and OS setup with up-to-date drivers. We really didn’t have a lot of complaints here.

We’ll get into benchmarks now.

Thermaltake Vista 470M Benchmarks

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Power - Full Torture

Full system power measured at the wall is up first in our charts. This is captured while the system is running a full CPU plus GPU load with Blender and Port Royal on loop. System power consumption idles at around 60-70W and then climbs to roughly 150W during the brief CPU-only load portion, then jumps over 360W when the GPU joins in. It’s stable overall, and during our steady-state period, results in a 370W average. With an 850W PSU, Thermaltake has gone slightly overkill on the power supply, but not in a bad way. Most power supplies are at peak efficiency somewhere in the 40% to 60% range of utilization for capacity, although it depends on the power supply. 850W gives just enough headroom for an upgrade without increasing cost unnecessarily while also staying within a reasonable efficiency range.

Thermals - Full Torture

Next is a simple bar chart of all thermals at steady-state in the same workload. The GPU has plenty of access to fresh air, keeping itself to 68 degrees Celsius on the core, 75 degrees on the memory, and 80 degrees hotspot. This is all completely fine.

The CPU at steady state is 77 degrees, which is within the expected range for the 7800X3D with a competent 240mm liquid cooler. RAM SPD Hub and SSD temperatures were fine, showing a slight delta between the two RAM sticks. That’s normal.

Thermals are relatively hard to screw-up in this case since it’s so heavily perforated and includes 3 side intake fans, a 240 liquid cooler, and a rear exhaust fan. Thermaltake did not screw them up, so that’s also a good sign. Overall, the cooling configuration is good and performs well for what it is. We don’t have any problems with the CPU or GPU temperatures here.

CPU Thermals vs. Fan Speed - Full Torture

The chart above shows CPU temperature over time and plotted against fan speed. There’s an initial spike in temperature around the 200-second mark, which causes the liquid cooler’s pump (recorded as CPU1) and fan speeds to spike to control it. Outside of that initial burst, the rest of the curve is gradual, without any sudden ramps. This is all good as it should help avoid noticeable, annoying, and sudden changes in noise. Fan hysteresis seems good here.

The cooler fans topped out at 1908 RPM AVG, but the chassis fans only reached 429 RPM AVG. This is so low that we doubt they're contributing much at all to the overall cooling. The system doesn’t really need them to be going faster, but this points to them being improperly configured.

We think it’d be better to boost these speeds at least a couple hundred RPM to make some use of the fans, as currently, they are borderline ornamental at those speeds. It would actually result in a quieter system if Thermaltake slightly dropped the speed of the higher RPM fans and slightly increased the speed of the side fans, as they’d get rid of some of the higher frequencies in the noise spectrum by reducing the higher RPM fans. This would yield a better overall balance for the system than setting a few fans high and the rest so low that they do nearly nothing.

Acoustics - Full Torture

We’ll wrap up the charts with acoustic testing. 

This is done in our hemi-anechoic chamber that we built last year. We’ve been getting a ton of use out of this chamber for testing. The reason we built the chamber is to ensure a consistent test environment day-to-day. You’d be shocked how much daily external noise changes as picked up on decibel meters, and without good controls, we wouldn’t be able to fairly test and evaluate systems against each other from day to day as the conditions would be constantly changing. Our chamber allows us to eliminate external noises that aren’t from the computer, so if there’s a truck outside or some high-pitched wind whistling or something like that, we eliminate all of it with the chamber. That means we are correctly attributing system noise to the system itself, not to our own environmental factors that aren’t present in your situation.

The image above is a plot of dBA over time during the same full system load. The average noise level during idle was 18 dBA. Noise levels during steady-state reached 31.1 dBA. What we’re really looking at here is the ramp: Thermaltake’s system ramped to full noise level over a period of about 10 minutes, which is great. That means Thermaltake isn’t unnecessarily rapidly ramping and de-ramping the fans (other than that initial spike) and is utilizing time to slowly increase the speeds. This would help control noise levels during spikier workloads.

Frequency Spectrum

Here’s a quick frequency spectrum plot with data collected in our acoustic chamber.

The Thermaltake 470M under steady state full load had its largest spikes at the 223 and 380 Hz frequencies, followed by a dip, then another small spike at 500 Hz. Overall, this noise profile is fine. There is a slight spike at 1600-1700 Hz which could be flattened a bit by lowering the pump speed and CPU cooler fan speed slightly, but overall, there’s not a lot to complain about with it.

Packaging

Thermaltake’s packaging was generally pretty good, utilizing the tried and true box-in-a-box method, but with the oddity of using GPU box foam inserts as packing material (and from a different GPU than the one in our system, no less). We have no way to know if this is routine practice or if the warehouse just ran out of the usual stuff – at least it’s recycling. The PC itself was packed inside the case box as usual.

The glass side panel was screwed in for transit, which was good, and was taped to the front glass panel, which was annoying. But at least for the positives, making use of the glass security screw is the correct move and we’re happy to see it get its proper use. 

There was a QR code linking to instructions on how to remove the side panel. This is a bit strange since it’s a lot of extra steps to get to the answer: It technically works, but a simple instructional pictograph would be a lot better since they’re printing and applying a sticker anyway, so applying a sticker with a QR code to basically a single step is a roundabout way of conveying a message in the same space as the code itself.

The inside of the case was well-packed with a mixture of both closed-cell and expanding foams. Thermaltake did an adequate job of protecting the system during shipping. Ours did not sustain any shipping damage. We were overall happy with how this was packaged. 

Accessories

Now for the accessories: The included quick start guide provides an actually helpful primer for setup, especially for novices. Step 1 clearly instructs the user to plug the monitor into the GPU and not the motherboard, which should help prevent the number one easy mistake, and it also notes to flip the PSU switch to on, which should prevent the second most common easy mistake. 

The bag of accessories inside the case has the case manual, SATA cables, WiFi antennae, extra screws, and, curiously, two 12VHPWR adapters. One of them is the official NVIDIA adapter that probably came with the 4070 Super and the other is a mismatched-white that just looks bad. Nothing in the build is white themed, so we assume this was an accidental inclusion. Including the native NVIDIA adapter is good though, as there are a lot of reasons a user may want it in the future. Keeping the card’s accessories with the card is the right move and we’re happy to see it. Some SIs just toss the extras, which could minimally pose issues for second-hand resale when done with the system.

We’re not sure if this is better or worse than the used Sharpie PRO we got from NZXT. We didn’t end up mentioning that in the NZXT video because it didn’t matter compared to the utter trainwreck that Flex is, but we actually got sent a used Sharpie in the accessory box. Maybe it’s a trap so they can charge us for the entire cost of the system if we don’t include the Sharpie upon return.

Anyway, at least in reference to this, Thermaltake is looking good. We were overall satisfied with the accessories included.

Thermaltake Vista 470M Conclusion

Grab a GN Tear-Down Toolkit to support our AD-FREE reviews and IN-DEPTH testing while also getting a high-quality, highly portable 10-piece toolkit that was custom designed for use with video cards for repasting and water block installation. Includes a portable roll bag, hook hangers for pegboards, a storage compartment, and instructional GPU disassembly cards.

The quick version of the conclusion is this: The Thermaltake Vista 470M pre-built is one of the best we’ve looked at recently, alongside the Starforge Lowkey. It’s also the best value for money we’ve seen since probably the Maingear Vybe in 2022 (watch our review). The upcharge over DIY is only about $100, which is pretty much as good as it gets outside of major SI clearance sales. And even with the more recent sales since we bought the system, it might be at most $200 to $250 upcharge. 

Part selection makes sense outside of the slow DDR5-5600 – matching a still-excellent and efficient last-gen X3D CPU with the upper-midrange 4070 Super. It ends up being a good build. Thermaltake also doesn’t back the user into any corners with something like a proprietary motherboard that won’t get regular BIOS updates, which is good. The 850W PSU leaves overhead for a GPU upgrade down the road.

Now that the 9800X3D is out for effectively the same price, we’d like to see Thermaltake update the SKU with the new CPU and keep MSRP the same.

Build quality is overall good: Cable management was well-done, with the only major negative of the assembly being a bent RGB header.

The system’s setup was also a major positive for Thermaltake. The BIOS was sensibly configured and the Windows 11 install was clean, with impressively fresh GPU drivers. The only oddity there was a missing X3D driver that’s only necessary to the dual CCD parts, which the 7800X3D isn’t. As general best practice, we still like to see all drivers installed and no yellow bangs (!) in the device manager.

Thermals across the whole build are well managed, with CPU and GPU temperatures within expected ranges. Fan curves and acoustics are also good, with the one exception being the chassis fans never ramping up. 

Thermaltake could improve upon its fan configuration by reducing the CPU speeds in the curve and increasing the case panel speeds, which would slightly lower noise and create a more desirable acoustic profile, but with the same thermal results.

We’re overall impressed with this system. After how many bad prebuilts we’ve looked at recently, we specifically went hunting for good ones and bought several. Of those, one was bad -- and that’s coming up soon -- and another coming up looks promising. This one went well. This is our first Thermaltake prebuilt we’ve bought. We’d feel comfortable recommending this one. It’s a big plus to see AMD in use where it makes sense too, as a lot of the system integrators and OEMs are still embedded with Intel.

Well done to Thermaltake. We’ll probably give this system to someone we know since we expect it won’t come back with any problems.


NVIDIA RTX 5090 at 575 Watts, RTX 5080, 5070 Ti, & 5070 Specs

15 janvier 2025 à 21:55
NVIDIA RTX 5090 at 575 Watts, RTX 5080, 5070 Ti, & 5070 Specsjimmy_thang January 15, 2025

NVIDIA announces 4 Blackwell GPUs and claims that the $549 RTX 5070 is comparable to the RTX 4090

The Highlights

  • The RTX 5090 has an MSRP of $2,000
  • The RTX 5080 has an MSRP of $1,000
  • The RTX 5070 Ti has an MSRP of $750
  • The RTX 5070 has an MSRP of $550
  • The RTX 5090 and 5080 are listed to release on January 30 and the 5070 Ti and 5070 are set to launch in February

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Intro

NVIDIA today announced its RTX Blackwell family of 50-series GPUs. These include its RTX 5090 at $2,000, the RTX 5080 at $1000, the 5070 Ti at $750, and the RTX 5070 at $550.

NVIDIA claims that its RTX 5070 has “4090 performance at $549,” which is definitely something we will be inspecting. NVIDIA also stated that this is “impossible without AI,” also stating it is “impossible without GDDR7,” which the company is moving to for its 50-series video cards.

Let’s get into the news.

Editor's note: This was originally published on January 7, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Host, Writing

Steve Burke

QC

Jeremy Clayton

Video Editing

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


RTX Blackwell

NVIDIA spent a lot of time talking about AI, and we’ll get into some of that briefly at the end.

We’ll start with the hard information that we have.

NVIDIA announced its Blackwell GPU as it’ll arrive to the consumer market in January. The GPU, presumably the full Blackwell die, was noted as a 92 billion transistor solution (as compared to the RTX 4090’s approximate 76 billion).

Notably, the card CEO Jensen Huang showed off at the event appeared to be a 2-slot card, which he noted has 2 fans. This is a stark contrast to the huge prototype NVIDIA cooler we just tore down. This is a big swing from the 3-slot and 4-slot cards we’ve become used to, which were necessary for thermal and power management.

Hard Specs

NVIDIA also posted some of the hard specs to its website.

We can start with the power, which is listed as 575W total graphics power for the 5090. 

That’s a huge amount of load to put on a single 16-pin connector and we’re concerned about the strain on it. We also wonder if this will be coupled with a redesign of coolers to try and actively cool the area of the power connector.

The RTX 5090 Blackwell GPU is listed as having 21,760 CUDA cores, memory at 32 GB of GDDR7, clocks at 2.41 GHz boost and 2.01 GHz base, and a large 512-bit memory interface width. NVIDIA has iterated its Tensor core generation to 5 and its RT core generation to 4 for Blackwell, though we don’t yet have architectural details on what that actually means on the consumer side. We expect those details soon.

The FE card is listed as 304mm by 137mm for dimensions, and 2 slots thick.

Jumping over to the prior RTX 4090 (watch our review) for reference: The 4090 has 16,384 CUDA cores, down notably from the 21,760 of the 5090 -- but cores can’t be linearly compared, especially cross generation, so the real-world impact likely won’t track linearly. The 4090 also ran 24 GB of GDDR6X rather than the 32GB GDDR7 on the 5090. The 4090’s clocks are higher as advertised, though, at 2.52 GHz boost and 2.23 GHz base -- but clocks, like core count, aren’t everything.

Zooming out to look at memory capacity, we see the 5090 at 32 GB, the 5080 at 16 GB, the 5070 Ti at 16 GB, and the 5070 at 12 GB. For perspective, the RTX 4070 (watch our review) is also 12 GB, the 4070 Ti is 12GB, the 4070 Ti Super (read our review) is 16GB, and the 4080 is 16GB.

Going to a fuller look at the specs, the 5080 is listed at 10,752 CUDA Cores, which is slightly more than the RTX 4080’s 9,728 CUDA cores and not the same huge change we see with the 4090 to 5090. The 5070 Ti lists 8960, against 7680 on the 4070 Ti (watch our review), and the 5070 lists 6144, up from 5888 on the 4070 configuration. 

Again, these aren’t directly comparable as they’re different generations, but are useful for establishing how NVIDIA is positioning the cards.

The full specs page shows a 2.62 GHz max boost on the 5080, 2.45 GHz on the 5070 Ti, and 2.51 GHz on the 5070. We already said the 5090 has a larger memory bus. The 5080 and 5070 Ti both run a 256-bit bus, with the 5070 at 192 bits.

Other than the 575W of the 5090, NVIDIA lists the other cards at 360W, 300W, and 250W for total board power. Broadly speaking, NVIDIA’s power consumption appears to be increasing. 

This is good timing with our efficiency testing: It’s possible efficiency is up despite power draw also going up, but that’s what we’ll find out.

First-Party Marketing Claims

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

We’ll have our own benchmarks soon enough and you should rely on those or the independent benchmarks of other trusted reviewers. We can still reference NVIDIA’s first-party claims to get an idea for where they stand.

NVIDIA’s webpage has a relative performance chart that’s pretty hard to actually read, but we can get an idea. NVIDIA claims the 5090 outperforms the 4090 by over 2x in some situations, such as with Cyberpunk and Wukong, among others. In these tests, they list “DLSS+Full RT” as the settings. The footnote that’s nearly the same color as the page background says that the 40-series used frame generation in this testing, but the 50 series used MFG 4x mode. This makes the comparison not like-for-like.

We consider this approach flawed, but we’ll look at their other claims for full perspective. Switching to the RTX 5080, NVIDIA shows it as outperforming the RTX 4080 (watch our review) by, again, sometimes 2x -- this is tough to filter through differing settings tested, unfortunately.

The 5070 Ti shows beyond 2x gains against the 4070 Ti in the same way and with the same settings difference, with the 5070 and 4070 showing the same in NVIDIA’s first-party claims.

Of all of these, the Plague Tale comparison is maybe the most fair since NVIDIA notes that it only has DLSS 3.

As for what DLSS 4 actually is, NVIDIA ran this new blog post to introduce it. Of MFG, or Multi-Frame Generation, the post reads, “DLSS Multi Frame Generation generates up to three additional frames per traditionally rendered frame, working in unison with the complete suite of DLSS technologies to multiply frame rates by up to 8X over traditional brute-force rendering.”

The page continues to say, “Our new frame generation AI model is 40% faster, uses 30% less VRAM, and only needs to run once per rendered frame to generate multiple frames. For example, in Warhammer 40,000: Darktide, this model provided a 10% faster frame rate, while using 400MB less memory at 4K, max settings, using DLSS Frame Generation.”

This section of the article also indicates that you’ll be able to override the DLSS model used in games that don’t get updates from devs, which is already possible to be done manually by some users who replace .dll files. This new approach looks like it will be more user-friendly.

NVIDIA stated that its Blackwell GPUs will have 2x the memory bandwidth of Ada, at 1.8TB/s for the cited spec, it claimed 2x the the RT TFLOPS, and 1.5x Ada shader performance. 

The PCB showcased was a relatively small square -- like a further cut-down version of the 4090 FE PCB if you were to chop the wings off -- that appears to be sandwiched between two full flow-through fans. 

The design is shown in this explosion diagram where NVIDIA illustrates the PCB centrally with densely populated components on both sides of the board. The cooler also utilizes a vapor chamber cooling solution with what appears to be 5 heatpipes, assuming the render is accurate. The GPU directly contacts the vapor chamber as you would expect, with the flow through area handling the flanking heatsinks.

Uniquely, that appears to take some learnings NVIDIA had from this cooler, which is a full flow-through design. 

AI on GeForce

Buy a GN 4-Pack of PC-themed 3D Coasters! These high-quality, durable, flexible coasters ship in a pack of 4, each with a fully custom design made by GN's team. You'll get a motherboard-themed coaster with debug display & reset buttons, a SATA SSD with to-scale connectors, RAM sticks, and a GN logo. These fund our web work! Buy here.

NVIDIA also spent limited time talking about other AI features for gaming. Although it is publishing materials to its site, we’ll wait for the full architectural briefing to get into more depth. For now, the company highlighted these:

  • RTX Neural Material, wherein it showed an example material cut from 47 MB to 16 MB with this solution.
  • DLSS improvements by moving to a Transformer model rather than the previous CNN model.

NVIDIA’s keynote was lengthy and covered topics outside of our typical coverage scope. For now, we’re just focusing on getting these basics out to you and will revisit the other announcements in more depth as we have time to adequately read through all the released materials.

As for release dates: NVIDIA cited January in its keynote, but its website specifically lists January 30th for the RTX 5090 and 5080. It says the 5070 Ti and 5070 will arrive in February.


AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT, Ryzen 9950X3D, Z2 Extreme SOC for Ally / Legion, & More

14 janvier 2025 à 22:24
AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT, Ryzen 9950X3D, Z2 Extreme SOC for Ally / Legion, & Morejimmy_thang January 14, 2025

We delve into AMD’s CES reveals, which include new CPUs, GPUs and SOCs

The Highlights

  • AMD’s GPU reveals include the Radeon RX 9070 and RX 9070 XT
  • AMD’s CPU reveals include the 9950X3D and the 9900X3D
  • AMD announced 3 new SOCs: the Z2 Extreme, Z2, and Z2 Go
  • AMD also announced a new mobile CPU: The FireRange AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

AMD announced a ton of CPUs, GPUs, and handheld hardware today. The announcements were for the 9950X3D, 9900X3D, Ryzen Z2 SOC for handhelds such as the ROG Ally, and RDNA 4 GPUs like the RX 9070 and RX 9070 XT. AMD also announced a number of mobile CPUs. Our focus will be on RDNA 4 and the new Zen 5 X3D parts alongside the handheld SOC.

AMD 9070 XT & 9070

We’ll start with AMD’s GPU news since it’ll be the quickest.

Editor's note: This was originally published on January 6, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


AMD announced the existence of its Radeon RX 9070 and RX 9070 XT today, noting Q1 2025 availability.

Specs are extremely limited right now. The company did picture several partner model cards in its announcement slide, including at least one that looks like a Yeston model, an ASRock model, XFX, and all the others listed. The cards pictured above are generally 3-slot coolers that are 2-3 slots thick.

AMD says the GPUs will use its RDNA 4 architecture and will utilize a 4nm process from TSMC. AMD mostly described its specs with adjectives, which is unfortunately not particularly useful. Words like “optimized compute units,” “supercharged AI compute,” and “improved raytracing per CU” don’t tell us a whole lot. We’ll have to wait for that information.

Likewise, AMD announced that FidelityFX Super Resolution, or FSR4, will be released and has been built for RDNA 4. It intends to re-launch its Anti-Lag software solution that was intended to compete with Reflex, now in its Anti-Lag 2 iteration. We were not pre-briefed with any further information than this at the time of briefing.

The company is clearly self-aware, as it also presented a slide about its naming choices for the RX 9070 series. Go figure. The slide above shows that AMD intends to line-up the 9070 series, including both XT and non-XT models, with the RX 7900 XT down to the middle of the RX 7800 XT (read our review), whatever that means. The worst 9070 is apparently half of one RX 7800 XT -- or maybe that means 1.5 7800 XTs? All we’re missing is a note telling us that the image is not to scale.

Anyway, against NVIDIA, this roughly positions the 9070 series as comparable, according to this image, to the 4070 Ti (watch our review) and 4070 Super (read our review). We won’t get out our scrying stones for this hastily thrown-together image since it’s hard to judge without real numbers, but that’s at least how AMD seems to be positioning it.

The company claims the change is to line-up with its Ryzen 9000 CPUs and says it will reserve 8000 naming for its mobile CPUs.

AMD CPUs

Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!

On the CPU side, AMD’s two new desktop CPUs are predictable: The 9950X3D and the 9900X3D, which use the Zen 5 architecture that shipped at the end of last year and follow-up the wildly successful 9800X3D. The 9800X3D has been constantly out of stock due to the demand.

The 9950X3D is a 16C/32T part that advertises a maximum boost frequency of “up to 5.7GHz,” noting a 144MB total cache size. At the time of writing this, AMD has not provided pricing details or a specific release date beyond sometime within the next few months. 

For comparison, the 9800X3D (read our review) has a total 104MB cache and $480 MSRP. The advertised boost of the 9800X3D is 5.2GHz, so the 9950X3D has a greater cache size and may benefit from higher boosting. The 144MB cache on the 9950X3D comes from the additional CCD in the configuration and could have some specific benefits that we’ll explore in our eventual review. 

The 9900X3D is a 12C/24T component that advertises up to a 5.5 GHz boost max. It has a 140MB total cache. The 9950X3D runs a 170W TDP, with the 9900X3D at 120W. The 9800X3D is also 120W. Because of this, the 9800X3D may benefit from additional power available during fully loaded workloads. There could be some shuffling of the CPU stack in specific benchmarks due to the power budget differences.

AMD’s updated chipset drivers should more intelligently park CCDs and, in theory, should make it easier to upgrade in-socket without needing to blow away the whole OS prior to moving from a single-CCD part to a dual-CCD part. We will still be using isolated SSDs for our reviews, but this should be a benefit for end users who may later seek to upgrade in-socket.

AMD published some first-party claims. As usual, we’ll have our own numbers soon -- as will basically all other reviewers -- and so you should wait for those prior to making decisions. To set the stage for what we’re verifying against, AMD is claiming the following:

AMD says this is “the world’s best gaming processor,” though note that they are comparing it to the 7950X3D (watch our review). The 9950X3D is shown as being on average 8% better across 40 games that AMD tested, with a range of no change to a 58% uplift over baseline compared to the 7950X3D.

AMD also claims that it outperforms the 285K (read our review) by 20% on average across 40 games. We definitely believe this, based on numbers we ran for the 9800X3D and 285K already.

Its first-party numbers also point to performance improvement in Blender, with lesser improvements in Photoshop and Premiere in PugetBench testing against AMD’s own prior processor.

Historically, these CPUs do not necessarily provide significant improvements over the single-CCD X3D CPUs of the same generation. You might see rough equivalence or slight changes in specific games. The primary advantage would be for someone who does a lot of gaming but also wants the additional cores for production workloads. 

The other historical challenge has been behavior with core parking, something we’ve now detailed extensively. While core parking is still a “thing,” AMD says its new chipset drivers should resolve a lot of the past issues.

AMD Z2 SOC

AMD’s Z2 SOC follows-up the Z1 and Z1 Extreme mobile solutions that were found on some handheld devices. AMD has also offered mobile chips like the 7840U and 8840U that have been in handheld devices and are comparable.

The Z2 is light on information: AMD again defers to descriptors like ‘breathtaking” and “exhilarating speed,” which we assume is the next speed setting for a Back to the Future movie. 

It also gets into some business-y stuff, like the addressable market and increase in competition in this market.

As for actual news, the Z2 family comes in 3 variations currently known: The Z2 Extreme, Z2 Go, and the…Z2 non-Extreme, non-Go.

The Z2 Extreme and Z2 are both 8C/16T parts with the same cache and a boost frequency separated only by 100 MHz. The actual change comes in the form of the integrated graphics. This is also where the Z1 and Z1 Extreme deviated most heavily. The configurable TDP allows up to 5W more driven to the Z2 Extreme, which will cost battery life but help power the GPU. The Z2 has a higher boost clock despite a lower cTDP, likely due to overall package budget allocation with the GPU change (and also density).

The Z2 Go is new. This is a 4C/8T part that only boosts to 4.3 GHz maximum advertised, only has 10 MB of cache, keeps the 15-30W cTDP, and keeps the 12 CUs. This CPU is far weaker than the others listed here, especially with that clock drop, so we’re curious to see what types of devices make the best use of it. We’ll also be curious to see battery life and if it can stick closer to that 15W number while still providing meaningful performance.

These are all listed for Q1 2025 availability, so we’ll be busy on our team running handheld benchmarks once again here soon. We ran several reviews last generation and will need to do a total refresh.

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

AMD HX3D

We’d like to dedicate this next section to our late friend Gordon Mah Ung, who once joined us to complain about AMD’s mobile CPU naming scheme.

AMD’s new mobile CPU is the FireRange AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D that’s releasing in 1H 2025, and it’s joining the 9955HX and 9850HX mobile parts.

The 9955HX3D is advertised as what AMD claims is the best gaming and content creation part for mobile. We don’t really test mobile, but we certainly use high-end laptops for our travel and might try these out.

The 9955HX3D is a 16C/32T part that boosts up to 5.4GHz. It has 144 MB of cache and a TDP of 54W. The 9955HX is the same, but with less cache. The 9850HX is a 12C/24T part with lower boost, no X3D cache by mercy of its easier name, and the same TDP.

AMD also spent some time on its new “AI” brand name mobile processors, but we’ll leave that to someone else to cover as that’s not really our area of focus.


Intel At Its Best: Revisiting the i9-12900K, i7-12700K, i5-12600K, 12400, & i3-12100F in 2024

6 janvier 2025 à 21:37
Intel At Its Best: Revisiting the i9-12900K, i7-12700K, i5-12600K, 12400, & i3-12100F in 2024jimmy_thang January 6, 2025

We compare Intel’s 12th gen CPUs against newer CPUs in a variety of gaming and productivity benchmarks

The Highlights

  • Alder Lake brought a new platform that included new I/O, options for both DDR4 and DDR5 and PCIe Gen5
  • Intel’s 12th gen CPUs are no longer chart toppers
  • Intel’s 12th series CPUs escaped the company’s 13th and 14th gen issues

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

We’re revisiting Intel’s best recent CPUs right now. Intel Alder Lake managed to escape the 13th & 14th “Gen” issues without a scratch while also being the start to this era of CPUs. They can socket into the same motherboard as a 14900K in many instances and are somehow even still available for (sometimes) reasonable prices. Recently, the 12900K was as low as $120 from Best Buy as it got purged from inventory.
In this article, we’re revisiting the 12900K (watch our review), 12700K via our KF, the 12600K, 12400, and 12100F.

Editor's note: This was originally published on November 17, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing, Video Editing

Steve Burke

Testing
Patrick Lathan

Mike Gaglione

Video Editing

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


As a quick reminder of the history of these parts, this is what we thought of them back when they launched: “This is an excellent first volley from Intel with Alder Lake. It is on the expensive side. Price has crept up, performance, fortunately, has also crept up but so too has power. You get some new and exciting technologies with Alder Lake; DDR5 being one of them. Ultimately, it's about how this competes and this has surprisingly decent value when compared to the 5900X (watch our review) and the 5950X (watch our review), especially in production workloads. There are places where AMD still holds an advantage but they have gotten slimmer.”

That was for the 12900K. For the 12100F (watch our review), we were also relatively positive: “At $130, it's actually a pretty exciting CPU for us to review because, for gaming, it did very well. And even with a high-end GPU, it's doing pretty well, so we were impressed with its gaming performance.”

It feels weird to revisit our old reviews because we were really excited about what Intel was doing at the time. It was fiercely competitive. 

It’s easy to forget how positive we were on some of Intel’s launches back from the 8000 series into the 12th Gen with Alder Lake when looking at the last few rounds. The 13 and 14 series CPUs were largely refreshes, but Alder Lake brought a new platform forward with new I/O, including options for both DDR4 and DDR5 and PCIe Gen5.

AMD had also forsaken its budget market at this time: Going back through our old reviews, we were reminded of how AMD had gotten so comfortable in its position that it had stopped the 5000 series briefly at the 5600X (watch our review) levels. They introduced the 5600 (watch our review) to help with this, but overall, AMD’s pricing was much higher than it had been in the preceding generations. That left Intel with a huge gap to fill with its 12100F, which later went on to land on our Best CPUs of the Year awards list for at least 2 years for its viability as a true budget gaming part.

So that’s the history. These CPUs were exciting. 

For this revisit, to make space on the charts so they are somewhat legible, we’re removing the 7900 non-X, 7700 non-X (watch our review), and 7950X (watch our review) ECO Mode results from gaming benchmarks. You can find all these numbers in our 9800X3D review or 7600X3D CPU review if you’d like them. They are directly comparable.

That’s enough of a history lesson. Let’s get into it -- and we’ll start with a new set of experimental charts.

Modern Equivalent Table (Gaming)

Equivalent Gaming Performance in 2024 | Alder Lake Revisit | GamersNexus | EXPERIMENTAL CHARTS
12900K12700K12600K1240012100F
Stellarisi5-14600K
R5 7600
i5-13600K
5600X3D/5700X3D
R7 5800X
R5 5600X
R5 5600XNo Modern Neighbor
Closest: R7 3700X
F1 24i5-13600K
R5 7600X
Ultra 5 245K
Ultra 5 245K
5600X/5800X
R5 5600X5600XNo Modern Neighbor
Closest: R7 3700X
Dragon's Dogma 2R5 5600X3D
Ultra 7 265K
Ultra 5 245K
i5-13600K
R7 9700X
i5-13600K
R7 9700X
R9 7900X
R9 7900X
R7 7700X
R5 5600X
R7 3700X
Rainbow Six SiegeUltra 5 245K
[worse lows]
R7 5800X
No Immediate Neighbor
Closest: Ultra 5
245K, 12400
No Suitable Comparison:
- No Modern Neighbor
- No Immediate Neighbor
No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R7 3700X
No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R7 3700X
Total War: Warhammer IIIUltra 7 265K
R5 5600X3D
R7 5800X
R7 5700X3D
R5 5600X
R9 7900XR9 7900No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 3600
Starfield5800X3D
i5-13600K
R9 7950X
R5 7600X3D
Ultra 5 245K
R7 5700X3D
R7 7700X/9700X
R9 7900X
R7 5800X
R5 9600X
R5 5600X
No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 3600
Final Fantasy XIVR9 7900
i5-13600K
Ultra 7 265K
R9 7900
i5-13600K
Ultra 7 265K
Ultra 5 245KUltra 5 245KNo Modern Neighbor
Closest: R7 3700X
Baldur's Gate 3R9 9700X/9900X
Ultra 7 265K
R9 7900/X
Ultra 5 245K
R7 7700X
R5 7600X
i5-13600K
R5 5600X
R5 7600X
i5-13600K
R5 5600X
DNF
Issues running benchmark

We have a table we’re experimenting with for this. This table will list the closest equivalent component for each application tested. Sometimes the ranges don’t line-up well, so we chose the closest within reason, but deferred to older parts where necessary. We defined “modern” as anything from Ryzen 5000 or newer and anything from Intel 13 and newer, even though 5000 can be pretty old -- it opened up more comparisons.

Broadly speaking, we noticed that the 12900K is similar to a newer i5 in several games. This included Stellaris, F1 24, Starfield, Final Fantasy XIV, and the Ultra 5 in Rainbow Six (but with worse lows). The Ultra 7 265K (read our review) was also close in Final Fantasy and Baldur’s Gate 3. AMD’s CPUs are more varied, and include the 7600 (watch our review), 7600X (watch our review), 5800X, and some X3D parts, generally those are higher performers.

The 12700K was broadly similar to an Ultra 5 245K from Intel or a 5600X to 5800X from AMD, with some X3D presence. Most X3D parts perform much higher than these Alder Lake CPUs.

The 12600K was regularly near the 5800X and 13600K CPUs.

The 12400 regularly neighbored the 5600X and sometimes the 245K or 9600X. The 12100F had few modern neighbors, mostly aligning with a 3700X (watch our review) or 3600 (watch our review) for gaming performance.

Modern Equivalent Table (Production)

Equivalent Production Performance in 2024 | Alder Lake Revisit | GamersNexus | EXPERIMENTAL CHARTS
12900K12700K12600K1240012100F
Blenderi7-13700K
R9 7900
i5-13600K
R7 7700X
R5 9600X
R7 5800X
No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 3600
Closest: R7 2700
No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 2600
Chromium Code Compilei7-13700K
R9 7900/X
i5-14600K
Ultra 5 245K
R7 9700X
R5 9600XR5 5600X3DNo Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 2600
7-Zip Compressioni5-14600K
R7 9800X3D
Ultra 5 245K
R7 7700X
R7 9700X
R5 7600X/9600X
R7 5700X3D
R5 5600XNo Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 2600
7-Zip DecompressionUltra 7 265K
R7 9800X3D
R7 7700X
R7 5800X
Ultra 5 245K
R5 7600X3D
R5 5600X
No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 2600
No Suitable Comparison:
- No Modern Neighbor
- No Immediate Neighbor
Adobe PhotoshopR5 7600X3D
i5-14600K
i5-13600K
R7 5800X3D
i5-13600K
R7 5800X/X3D
R7 5800X
R5 5600X3D
R5 5600XNo Modern Neighbor
Closest: R7 3700X
Adobe PremiereR7 9800X3D
Ultra 5 245K
i5-13600K
R7 9700X
R7 7800X3D
R5 9600X
R5 7600X
R5 5600X3D
R5 5600X
No Modern Neighbor
Closest: R5 2600

Here’s the same concept, but applied to production workloads.

Intel Alder Lake does better here for modern equivalents. The 12900K is regularly similar to a 13700K (watch our review) or 7900-class CPU. It isn’t distant from the 265K in Decompression, although dips in Premiere closer to a 245K (read our review).

The 12700K (watch our review) is similar to the 13600K in many of its tests, so after 3 years, it has dropped to subsequent series i5 performance levels. The 245K is regularly right alongside the 12700K. From AMD, the 9700X (read our review) and 7700X are regularly its modern equivalent. The 12600K (watch our review) is most similar to the 9600X or 7600X in many tests, with no nearby modern Intel equivalents. They are all much better than this. We might have to test a 13400 (read our review) or something to see this level.

The 12400 (watch our review) is regularly near the 5600X. In some tests, it is down at 3600 or 2600 (watch our review) levels. The 12100F has no modern neighbors and, in some instances, no suitable comparisons close by. The R5 2600 (watch our review) is regularly the closest comparison for the 12100F.

Intel 12th Generation Gaming Benchmarks

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Stellaris

We’ll start with Stellaris, the space game which we use to test for simulation time rather than framerate. This is still a great benchmark because the results don’t care about resolution or graphics: It is a highly CPU-bound game with real-world implications for time.

First up, our new entry with the best result is the 9800X3D with liquid nitrogen and at 6.2 GHz. Although you could have a friend or family member pour LN2 while you game, it’s not likely -- but we wanted to put it here to show just how insane the CPU is when pushed to the limits.

Snap back to reality, we have Alder Lake: The 12th Gen CPUs land at 36.7 seconds for the 12900K, 37.7 seconds for the 12700KF, 41.2 seconds for the 12600K, and 43.1 seconds for the 12400. Top-to-bottom, this creates a range of 6.4 seconds, or a reduction in simulation time from the 12400 to the 12900K of 15% -- meaning 15% less time to simulate. If you had bought the 12900K for $630 in 2021, then it’s given you about 3 years of performance and has aged into a modern i5 in this test, which really isn’t that bad. The 14600K is adjacent at 36.6 seconds. An in-socket upgrade to a 14900K (read our review) would get you about a 9.5% reduction in simulation time and is probably not worth it for most people. The 9800X3D (without liquid nitrogen) would yield a 30% reduction in simulation time.

The 12700K is slightly better than a 5700X3D, with the 12600K around 5800X (watch our review) and 5600X levels. The 12400 is significantly better than the 12100F at 47 seconds and just behind the 5600X.

Dragon’s Dogma 2

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is up now. In this one, the chart leader is the 9800X3D at 129 FPS AVG, which is an incredible lead over the 7800X3D’s 111 FPS AVG.

The 12900K falls down to a cluster of Intel parts that cap-out around 100 FPS. The 265K is roughly equivalent to the 12900K in averages and lows. The 245K isn’t far behind. 

The 14900K boosts the ceiling to 110 FPS AVG, alongside the 13900K, 14700K, and 13700K that find a 10% higher ceiling. The 5700X3D has functionally identical performance to the 12900K. Anything on this list is a sidegrade for it other than a 9800X3D.

We feel the same about the 12700K: It wouldn’t be worth upgrading by this test alone.

The 12600K and 12400 show more age: Both are still great for framerate and completely playable, but at least a gap to the top is established. Moving to a 9800X3D would boost performance by 46% from the 12600K. An in-socket upgrade might be about 22% by moving to a 13700K

The 12100F is at 71 FPS AVG, which is also remarkably good for such a modern game. The lows are hurting a little more and sometimes get spiky, but overall, we’re impressed by how it has held on. Upgrading to a 13700K in-socket would be a huge upgrade from the 12100F. It would be economical, and might be worth considering.

Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail (1080p)

Final Fantasy 14: Dawntrail is a 2024 entry for us.

The Alder Lake series does OK here from an absolute standpoint, but is far down the charts in a relative sense.

The 12900K and 12700K are between the Ultra 7 265K -- which did horribly in this benchmark -- and the 13600K. The Ultra 200 Series is known to be regressive in this game, with Intel also showing the same behavior. The sad thing is that you’d be going backwards if you didn’t pay attention to benchmarks and bought a 265K. It wouldn’t be a crazy thing to do, either: It’s 3 so-called “generations” newer, yet worse than a 12700K and 12900K, at least in this test. The 12600K wouldn’t even see a huge uplift to it either.

The 13700K and 14700K offer large improvements around 15-18% from Alder Lake, though you’d need a good price to be worth the purchase. The 14900K boosts to 310 FPS AVG, an uplift of 26% over the 12900K.

AMD’s 9800X3D sets the ceiling at 373 FPS AVG, with all the other X3D parts right alongside it. 

Starfield

Starfield is up next. The 12900K hits 124 FPS AVG in our test here, which aligns it with the 13600K and 14600K CPUs, slightly bested by the 5800X3D (watch our review). This goes to show how good the 5800X3D was at launch, especially given the price gap when both the 12900K and 5800X3D were still regularly available new.

The 9800X3D shows room for a 36% improvement in performance from the 12900K. The 285K with ultra-fast, expensive memory in Gear 2 improves by 23% on the 12900K, but the like-for-like comparison has it at 15% ahead.

The 12700K is similar to a 245K -- you’d be downgrading overall by moving to it, aside from efficiency. The 5700X3D (read our review) is also nearby. Upgrading the 12700K to a 14900K would get you about 13% more performance and probably isn’t worth it overall.

The 12600K stands to gain more notably if upgraded in-socket to a 13700K, where it’d gain 26%. The 12400 could be worth considering an in-socket jump to a 14600K (watch our review) or 13700K as well, if cheap enough.

The 12100F is somehow still chugging along, sandwiched between AMD’s 3000-series parts and outperforming the R5 3600 and R7 2700 (watch our review).

Baldur’s Gate 3

Baldur’s Gate 3 used to have the X3D series all in the 120s, but the 9800X3D broke that in a massive way and hit 160 FPS AVG in our particular test case. We validated this in our 9800X3D review and explained why it’s happening.

X3D dominates the entire top quarter of this chart, followed next by the memory-boosted 285K. The prior generation 14900K, 13900K, and 13700K are all within error of each other. Don’t be confused by their ordering: Their performance is identical and within run-to-run variance, which is due to encountering a memory limitation. We can see this from the 285K (read our review) stock results versus the DDR5-8600 results.

The 12900K ran at 96 FPS AVG, or equal to the 265K. The 265K would be an expensive downgrade when looking at the total picture. The 12900K is still doing well enough here that it probably doesn’t make sense to replace except maybe with a 9800X3D.

The 12700K is about tied with a 245K. Like the 12900K, there aren’t many worthy upgrades here. A 13700K, 13900K (watch our review), or 14900K would give about a 15% uplift in our testing.

The 12600K and 12400 are at about 13600K levels of performance. An in-socket upgrade to a 13700K in this chart would yield about 28% improvement from these CPUs. The 12100F had trouble running this test. We might be able to force it to work, but natively, the low performance was bad enough that we consider it disqualifying in our test.

F1 24 - 1080p

F1 24 is up next.

The game scales from 163 FPS AVG up to 464 FPS AVG in our testing. The 12900K starts Alder Lake off down in the range of the i5 CPUs, including the 13600K and 14600K. Inspecting the data, we found that the 12900K had a more variable average FPS than some other CPUs, which we think is due to its core arrangement and Windows 2H24: The range was 310.5 FPS to 316 FPS AVG run-to-run, and upon inspection, it is due to the frametime pacing where we sometimes get a higher throughput with worse pacing and sometimes the opposite.

Overall, it ends up around 13600K levels. We saw this last round as well, just with an older Windows version. The 14900K has a 23% advantage on the 12900K. The 9800X3D runs 49% ahead of the 12900K.

The 12700KF is between the 5800X and 5600X, with the 245K just ahead. Intel’s 12600K lands at 270 FPS AVG, meaning a 13700K upgrade would boost the average by about 34%.

The 12100F still does great here, all things considered, and is just ahead of the 3700X.

Production Benchmarks

On to production benchmarks. For these tests, we’re looking at applications like Blender, Chromium code compile, and more. Users of the i7 and i9 CPUs are more likely to care about the performance here. It’s also one of Intel’s strong points of the past generations.

Blender

Blender 3D rendering is up first for production.

The 12900K did well here. It’s at 11.7 minutes required to complete a single-frame render of the GN intro animation, which has it about tied with the 12C/24T AMD R9 7900 non-X CPU. The 13700K does well with its higher frequency and equal core count to the 12900K. The 14900K has large gains here from moving to a 32-thread configuration, reducing the time required by 27% to 8.5 minutes. That’s about the same we see from the newer 265K, with the 285K doing well in one of its few strong tests and reducing time to 7.1 minutes. That has it at about the 9950X levels of performance.

If you were upgrading for gaming, the 9800X3D is the only option that might universally make sense against the 12900K. But for production, unfortunately, the options wouldn’t necessarily move the needle on gaming performance in a meaningful way despite offering large gains in workstation applications. You’d have to choose.

The 12700KF has the same core count as the 13600K, so the two perform about the same. An upgrade to the 14900K in-socket would be a huge 39% reduction in render time required.

The 12600K is at about levels of the 9600X. The 7800X3D (watch our review) outperforms it, but is better in gaming than production as compared to the non-3D parts like the 7700X. The 9800X3D would at least improve on the 12600K somewhat while giving a big boost to gaming.

As for the 12400 and 12100F, they’re near the bottom. The 12100F struggles with core count, so the 2600 is a little faster. The 12400 is roughly tied with the 3600.

Chromium

In Chromium code compile, the 12900K required 119 minutes to complete the compile. This has it closer to the R9 7900 non-X (watch our review) than anything else. The 13700K improves with its higher frequency and equal core count, with the 14900K giving a compile time reduction of 26% less time. The 285K is also a big step up, though not significantly different from the 14900K.

Intel’s 12600K might see enough benefit from an in-socket upgrade to a 14900K or 14700K (read our review) that it’d be worth considering, especially for the gaming uplift, but only if you’re trying to save on cost by reusing a board and DDR5 RAM. 

The 12100F required 382 minutes, which is still about an hour more time than the R7 2700 and about tied with the R5 2600.

7-Zip Compression

7-Zip compression testing makes the 12900K feel a little older, outperforming the 14600K by just 4.3% (and similar for the 9800X3D). In the very least, upgrading to a 9800X3D for gaming would at least net equal performance in this type of task.

The 14900K offers a 38% increase in MIPS over the 12900K, maybe making it worth considering.

A new build with a 9950X yields about a 46% uplift in this benchmark.

The 12700K is down near the 7700X (watch our review) and 9700X, with the 14700K 48% higher in MIPS.

If you have a 12600K and wanted to stay on Alder Lake, moving to the 12900K improves performance by 48% here, which is pretty massive. 

The 12400 is more similar to a 5600X or 3600, so anything would be an upgrade. The 12100F is at the bottom, falling behind the R5 2600 in a predictable way with its thread deficiency in this test.

7-Zip Decompression

7-Zip decompression shows a lot of scaling with cores, as indicated by the 9950X (read our review) and 7950X. The 12900K still does OK here and bests the 9800X3D on a technicality. The 265K offers an uplift that wouldn’t be worth buying into, with the 285K pushing 30% higher in MIPS to 193K. The 7900X (watch our review) and 13900K offer more meaningful uplifts though, with the 13900K and 14900K benefiting from higher thread count and opening opportunities for upgrades.

The 12700KF is at 245K levels of performance and about tied with a 5800X. The 12600K would see multiples of uplift with some of the newer options at the top of this chart, again including the 14900K and 13900K. The 12100F isn’t comparable to anything here, with the 12400 similar to an R5 2600.

Adobe Premiere

Adobe testing is next with the Puget Suite.

Back with the Alder Lake launch, we stuck with Intel for our Premiere editing systems since it was the best opportunity at that time.

Today, the part still does pretty well in Premiere. Actually, we still use its direct descendants in our main editing machines, including 13700Ks and various i9s. The 12900K scored 9948 points in aggregate, which has it between the 9800X3D and 7900X. The 14900K wouldn’t boost it much, only 11% here. The 285K scores a rare victory in this one, but again wouldn’t be a huge move if you’re already on a 12900K. It might make more sense for a new build.

The 12700KF could be kept relevant a little longer with a bump to a 14700K and still be a top scorer on the chart with modern memory. The same goes for the 12600K and 12400.

The 12100F at least outdoes the 2600, but that’s it.

Adobe Photoshop

Adobe Photoshop is last.

This one is a bloodbath compared to many years ago, with Adobe updates and AMD architecture changes benefiting AMD.

The 12900K is in the lower half of the chart and surrounded by i5 CPUs, with the 12600K near AMD’s 5800X. The 12100F at least does comparatively better here and outranks the R5 3600.

Overall, almost anything is an upgrade over Alder Lake in this test.

Conclusion

Grab a GN15 All-Over Print Component Mouse Mat for a high-quality mousing surface that'll fit your keyboard & mouse. These mouse mats use a high-quality yellow rubber underside, a blue stitched border for fray resistance, and are covered in PC parts. This is the best way to support our work and keeps us ad-free to support consumer-first reviews!

Wrapping things up, the 12th Gen CPUs are still pretty good. 

People commonly ask us when they should buy or wait. If you’re on a 12th Gen CPU, we’ll break it down like this: Ask yourself if you’re happy with your PC right now. If you’re not actively annoyed by your computer’s performance, then you can just keep using it. If, however, the performance is bad or you just want to build a PC because it’s fun, then there are options here. 

One of the options is for an in-socket upgrade, to which there are caveats, which we’ll discuss below. Another option is to build a new system.  

For the in-socket option, the 13th and 14th series would be potential drop-in upgrades. The lower down the stack 12th Gen CPU you have, like the 12400F (read our review) or 12600K, the more meaningful it would be to do this. 

For this to work, you need to make sure your motherboard with a 12th Gen CPU has the newer CPUs on its compatibility list. You should be able to find this on the manufacturer’s website. You would also need to update the BIOS. If you’re upgrading from something like a 12100F to a 13900K, you’d want to make sure that your board has a good enough VRM to handle the additional heat and power. Likewise, it’s ideally an unlocked board for more feature support.

We tested on DDR5 here with like-for-like memory between the platforms. You could have used DDR4 with 12th Gen also. DDR4 could be a limiting factor, so if you have to upgrade your RAM and motherboard, you may as well go with a fully new build from AMD instead (if building a gaming PC), like a 9800X3D or similar.

And finally, used CPUs might be a bit of a landmine situation, unfortunately. Intel’s 13th and 14th Gen woes are detailed in other stories we’ve published, but one potential problem is that used CPUs could have instability issues. You’ll want to be careful when buying used. This is unfortunate, because CPUs have historically been pretty bullet-proof -- especially Intel’s -- and have been a great used option to save a quick $100 on an in-socket upgrade.

The price of new 13th and 14th series have dropped in price, which makes something like a 13700K not a bad option, especially if you’re on a lower tier 12th series part. 

Overall, objectively speaking, Intel’s 12th CPUs (for the most part) are still great gaming parts. They’re not at the top of the charts anymore, but that’s OK.


Intel Unbends Its CPUs: 285K RL-ILM vs. Standard ILM Laser, Pressure, & Thermal Benchmarks

26 décembre 2024 à 22:11
Intel Unbends Its CPUs: 285K RL-ILM vs. Standard ILM Laser, Pressure, & Thermal Benchmarksjimmy_thang December 26, 2024

We take an in-depth look into Intel’s new Reduced Load ILM by putting it under a laser scanner, specialized pressure scanning, and more

The Highlights

  • Intel’s new Reduced Load ILM (RL-ILM) helps unbend its CPUs
  • Despite offering improvements, the new and better ILM is optional
  • The RL-ILM is an improvement in both the curvature of the IHS and substrate and of the temperature in our testing

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

Intel is finally trying to unbend its CPUs, despite having to be on a bender to buy a $630 285K right now. Today, we’re using our laser scanner to look at the deflection in the CPU heat spreader from the different loading mechanisms, including these scans of the 285K (read our review) and 245K with different coolers installed. Today’s testing also includes specialized pressure scanning to produce pseudocolor images of pressure distribution across the IHS surface, very brief thermal testing to look at the differences with Noctua’s LBC (Low Base Convexity) flat coldplate, and we’ll look at the mechanical aspects.

Editor's note: This was originally published on November 4, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing, Host

Mike Gaglione

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

3D animation, Camera

Andrew Coleman

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


Unfortunately, Intel’s new and better ILM is optional. It didn’t force motherboard manufacturers to use it, so they can still cut corners if they want to save a few pennies. The new ILM is called the RL-ILM, or Reduced Load ILM, with the old one being referred to as the “Standard” ILM (indicating an assumption of it being the default). Our Z890 Hero ships with the RL-ILM, as do most high-end boards, so we used it as a test platform to swap to other official LGA-1851 ILMs for comparison.

Let’s get into it.

Differences

We’ll get some basic education in and go over the differences:

CPU sockets are one part mechanical and one part electrical. Intel uses what is called an Independent Loading Mechanism for its socket. Some people include the ILM when referring to the socket. On a technicality, the literal socket is the Land Grid Array with the carrier that actually holds the CPU. The loading mechanism is the mechanical part of the socket.

Intel is shipping 2 types of ILM, RL-ILM and Standard, and it is using at least 3 different suppliers that we’re aware of to manufacture these. Our Z890 Hero came with an RL-ILM by Lotes, which is a long-time supplier of ILMs. We also have the same-brand ILM of the Standard variant, plus the two other suppliers you’ll find on boards.

RL-ILM vs. Standard ILM

Here’s a CAD render of the socket. The standard ILM has an angle that increases the force application along the edges of the CPU. That’s the real difference here. This is what causes the depression we’ve seen in previous 3D laser scans we performed. These scans are from our past content: You can see how the ILM causes significant bending and forms a central concavity with the heat spreader, leading flatter cooler coldplates to be worse on Intel despite being better on AMD. You can learn more about that in our previous coverage here and here

Back to the CAD model, the RL-ILM is basically just flat. This is the biggest change, as the force should be reduced. This is also why Intel requires a higher force heatsink to be installed in order to ensure contact.

The RL-ILM also has one other difference: There’s an additional adhesive spacer on the underside, which can be thought of as similar to the washer mod that Noctua now ships with its NH-D15 G2 coolers as an option. The additional spacer goes underneath the existing black spacer, meaning that the ILM "leg" component probably was taken from existing Standard ILM stock, then retrofitted with effectively a sticker.

3D Animation

In our original Thermal Grizzly contact frame benchmark, we showed how the ILM clamp appeared to apply very slightly higher pressure to one side of the socket. This was exaggerated by the fact that the ILM has some play in it, where it can shift side-to-side and be repositioned and we saw that still happens on the RL-ILM. 

Here’s our 3D render of the standard ILM: With the CPU dropped into the socket, the standard ILM uses a hook that’s attached to the lever to centrally press down on the ILM lid that clamps directly to the CPU IHS. With the lever fully down and secured, the ILM is now secured at 3 points: 2 on the bottom of the ILM and 1 at the top. All of this is the same on the new RL-ILM. 

As for the CPU, the ILM has two wings that press down on the IHS at the borders, and with that curvature we showed in the CAD model, the force application at these points is high enough that a highly precise gauge can show how light is able to shine through despite the CPU being relatively flat when unclamped and looking flat to the eye.

We’ll refer you to our Thermal Grizzly Contact Frame benchmark from 2022 to learn more about this older style of ILM.

For the new version, clamping the CPU in the socket functions mechanically identically for the end user, with the lever pulling down to hook under a securing latch and clamp the ILM at 3 points, with 2 main contact points at the wings of the IHS. However, the lack of a bend in the ILM reduces the load. Intel still has to keep the force high enough that the CPU’s pads make contact with the socket pins, but has to be careful that it’s the right amount.

Too much or too little force can cause boot issues and high clock memory stability.

And that’s really it for these ILMs.

Pressure Scans

Noctua just got done spending literal years developing its new NH-D15 G2 and shipped it with 3 different coldplates, which makes it a unique candidate for pressure testing. 

For pressure testing, we take the different ILMs and apply a special pressure paper between the CPU and the coldplate. We then take that and scan it in with a specialized pressure scanner to create pseudocolor images of the pressure distribution.

Pressure Scan Noctua Results - HBC on RL-ILM vs. Standard

Here are the results for the two ILM types with the HBC cooler.

The new Reduced Load ILM with the high base convexity Noctua coldplate yielded low pressure at the outer edges, but especially toward the top of the board near the VRM and EPS12V cables. The pressure centrally remained high; however, because the CPU should be flatter with this ILM, the Noctua cooler ends up with less evenly distributed pressure because it’s designed for a different scenario.

The standard ILM with HBC cooler scans reinforce this: The HBC cooler ends up with more evenly distributed pressure at the top and bottom edges of the CPU IHS.

Pressure Scan Noctua Results - HBC, LBC, Standard

And here’s only the RL-ILM with the 3 Noctua cooler cold plates.

The RL-ILM pressure distribution was the most evenly distributed with the standard and LBC solutions. The two are mostly indistinguishable for distribution, although the precise pressure centrally will influence the results in thermal testing.

The LBC cooler had slight gaps at the left and right edges, but consistently square distribution at the top and bottom corners, with good pressure across the entire center. The standard cooler had less consistent pressure at the top and bottom edges and similar gaps to LBC at the edges. Ultimately though, these two basically look the same for contact.

Buy a GN 4-Pack of PC-themed 3D Coasters! These high-quality, durable, flexible coasters ship in a pack of 4, each with a fully custom design made by GN's team. You'll get a motherboard-themed coaster with debug display & reset buttons, a SATA SSD with to-scale connectors, RAM sticks, and a GN logo. These fund our web work! Buy here.

Laser Scan: Noctua Coldplates

Our Noctua NH-D15 G2 review went into depth with laser scans of the cooler’s coldplates, and that hasn’t changed. We’re showing the LBC, Standard, and HBC scans again briefly here just to help recap the impact because when we’re looking at pressure and how it is affected by the ILM, the cold plate is a part of that equation. 

And now we’ll scan the new Intel CPUs to see how their shape matches the pressure scans we saw earlier. 

285K & 245K Unsocketed Laser Scan

Here’s a look at the plain Intel 285K when it’s just flat in the laser scanner. The CPU isn’t in a socket at all here, so this is as simple as it gets. Even in our 2D screenshots of the 3D scan, we can see the letters -- the CPU IHS is so flat that the very slight indentation for the text is visible.

The IHS itself has a few higher points, one just off-center, one along the right edge when oriented in a legible orientation, and one just off the left edge of the CPU.

Magnifying it 100x, that coloration grows to form just a few high points. Overall, it’s flat, but at high magnification, some small deviations appear. One thing that is clear though is that there is no substrate curvature, which makes sense since it hasn’t been socketed.

Let’s create a grid with the 285K and add the 245K to it. The 245K (read our review) follows a similar pattern: Centrally, it’s a little higher, then just off-center right it’s also slightly higher at 1x. Adding 100x to the grid, there’s a similar pattern as with the 285K.

Finally, we added our unsocketed 12900KS from the golden sample coldplate story. It’s still flat when unsocketed, but the difference in IHS design is also slightly showing through.

Socketed Testing

And now, we’re going to throw this Z890 Hero with the new ILM into the scanner and socket the CPUs in it. We obtained this package of ILMs to test. The ASUS board uses the Lotes RL-ILM, so we’ll start with that one.

Standard vs. Low Pressure Socket - 3D

Here’s a one-to-one 3D visualization in Blender taking STL files from our laser scanner, showing the 285K with the standard ILM first. As usual, 1x magnification doesn’t show much, but bringing that to 100x quickly shows a deep concavity centrally, just like we saw with LGA 1700 CPUs.

Switching over to the new reduced load socket, we can see that the 1x to 100x magnification shows less of a pronounced curvature of the IHS itself. It’s still curved, but much less, with the CPU maintaining a more consistent height instead.

Socket Comparison - Grid (285K)

Here’s a grid comparison of the different ILMs on the same motherboard, tested with the same CPU -- starting with the 285K.

You can see that the Standard ILM at 100x magnification shows a huge deflection centrally, as we’ve seen before, with higher pressure on the far ends of the mechanism. While we can sort of see the slight ridgeline down the middle of the CPU, the bigger issue is how deeply it indents.

The reduced load socket is significantly flatter, with less of a central deflection. The ridgeline in the CPU IHS becomes more pronounced in the graphic because it is more consistently the highest thing in the image. Remember that this is at 100x magnification, so the differences are exaggerated intentionally.

Socket Comparison - Grid (245K)

Unveiling the 245K results in the grid, we see the same patterns: The standard ILM deeply indents the CPU centrally, deflecting and deforming it in a way that coldplates with matching convexity will cool it the best. The reduced load socket is flatter and more consistent, though is still slightly deflected centrally.

Laser Scan: ASUS Cooler

We need a laser scan of the cooler coldplate before moving to the pressure maps, as the cooler and IHS alike contribute to the pressure distribution. 

This laser scan shows the coldplate of the ASUS Ryujin liquid cooler, which is what Intel sent with its CPUs to reviewers. Other coolers would fit, but we wanted to test what Intel officially endorsed.

At a 1x scale, the ASUS Ryujin coldplate looks relatively flat, but still shows a protrusion dead-center, gradually reducing height towards the outer edges. When we did our in-depth testing on Intel performance with varying custom-made coldplates from Scythe, we found that this pattern often did well for Intel.

Scaling it 100x, we get this almost comical tower protruding from the coldplate. This helps us see the steep slope as ASUS applies massive pressure dead-center with its coldplate design. This is sort of a hamfisted approach and version of what Noctua did more precisely with the D15 G2 for LGA 1700, except Noctua had more nuance in the exact shape of the convexity, which will better align with the concavity in LGA 1700 CPU heat spreaders previously. It’s similar to what we saw in the $60 Thermalright liquid cooler, which managed to brute force its way in performance thanks to similar protrusions.

Pressure Testing Results

Time to look at some pressure scans of the ASUS cooler with the new Intel ILMs.

These images show a new pressure scan of our 14900KF with the ASUS Ryujin cooler and the old (or “standard”) ILM. In this scan, you can see the 14900KF has narrowing pressure on the left and right sides, with most of its pressure centered. That’s where it should be, and most of that is thanks to the comically protruding ASUS coldplate, but fuller coverage is ideal. The older IHS also is a little bit different shape than the new one. The second column represents the pre-installed reduced load ILM using the 285K. Looking at the third column, adding the standard ILM with the 285K, doesn’t look too different. The pressure profile appears to be distributed taller and narrower. There’s still some of that slimming effect going on when we get to the left and right sides but not nearly as pronounced as with the last gen IHS design and ILM. 

Ultimately, what we see is that ASUS’ older brute force approach gets a better pressure distribution on the prior LGA 1700 socket than on the new ARL 285K socket, which is thanks to the massive central protrusion. This is the approach Thermalright took with its $50-$60 liquid coolers previously as well. It’s relatively hamfisted, but works, whereas the more carefully shaped approach of air coolers like the D15 G2 and the Scythe FUMA 3 are technically a better pressure match; now, that said, a 360mm liquid cooler is still “better” (with regard to capability) overall, and it will cool better, but the Ryujin could improve with more purposeful coldplate shaping.

Thermal Test Setup

Thermal testing is up now. Full transparency that we’re keeping this really simple this time, mostly because it doesn’t take much testing to verify if there’s a difference at all.

We’re only running the comparison thermals with one cooler this time. The ASUS cooler is so heavily deflected that we’re not sure the comparison would be that useful, so instead, we approached it with what should be a worst case scenario: The Noctua NH-D15 G2 LBC, or low base convexity, which is the flattest of Noctua’s options. In theory, this should be the worst on the more deflected standard ILM+IHS combination and the best on the flatter IHS from the RL-ILM.

Other coolers could have more or less impact. Coolers with higher force application centrally and with more convexity would continue to compensate for design problems of the standard ILM, but we want to just run a quick evaluation on one of the uncompensated scenarios.

We are also not testing anything below the minimum spec Intel declares for the socket, which is a 35 lb. force from the cooler. Anything high-end that’d be paired with the current CPUs will meet or exceed this requirement anyway.

Thermal Results

Here are the results from a simple A/B test. For this testing, we did two full mounts and at least 3 passes to average the numbers. This allowed us to check for variance mount-to-mount. All our other CPU cooler standards and methodologies apply, like manually spreading paste, controlling the fan speeds, and fixing the voltages and frequency. We disabled all power and thermal limits and set a fixed voltage with fixed frequencies. We have a known power draw down the EPS12V and 24-pin ATX12V through the 4 phases that it has (without PCIe slot power). That allows us to get these numbers.

The result was 61.8 degrees delta T over ambient for average P-core temperature with the standard ILM and 59.6 dT with the RL-ILM, or the improved one, meaning about a 2.2-degree reduction when accounting for  ambient. Without the deltas, we were running the 285K in the 80s to low 90s because we disabled all TVB 70-degree throttle controls. Running the CPU hotter allows us to see more of a gap between the results. A CPU consuming less power with a stronger cooler would likely not show as big a gap.

Checking briefly with Der8auer as a peer review, we learned our results are roughly in-line with his own. The differences are aligned with cooler and heat load differences.

We observed a slightly lower core-to-core delta with the new ILM, but it was within error. The AVG all-core temperatures were not significantly different from the P-core temperatures in this one due to the proximity of the P-cores to E-cores in this architecture (combined with our adjustments in BIOS). 

So, as short as possible, the RL-ILM is about 2.2 degrees better at this heat load with this cooler.

Tutorial to Remove and install the ILM

Before we move to the conclusion, in case you buy a motherboard with a standard ILM and want to move from the high pressure standard one to the low-pressure RL-ILM, we’ll walk you through how to do that. 

If you are going to swap the socket, we recommend sticking with the same brand for the replacement if possible. In our case, we used Lotes. 

To begin, we recommend starting with the CPU installed to protect the pins underneath to mitigate the risk of dropping, say, a loose screw down into the socket. 

From there, unscrew the 4 screws. We used a regular T20 Torx screwdriver. 

Removing the screws frees the top and bottom pieces of the socket. It also frees the backplate. When you’re installing the backplate, it’s important to get the orientation right and to ensure that the plastic sticker side is touching the bottom of the motherboard and not the exposed metal side. The backplate also features a notch that aligns with the triangle that’s on the corner of the CPU.   

We found that it’s easier to install the lever arm piece first with its 2 screws. Once that’s in place, it’s time to secure the other side with its 2 screws. You don’t need a lot of torque for the screws. We recommend that you tighten them in a star pattern to evenly distribute pressure.  

Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

We regularly see people online saying that some cooler is 3 degrees lower than some other cooler, so just a reminder here on how all of this works: That 2.2 degrees is specifically at the power load we tested and with the cooler we used, under the conditions we employed. It will be higher or lower based on how these parameters change.

As an example, we did one round of tests with all the Intel throttle controls still enabled and saw less than 1-degree of difference -- but that’s because it was just throttling itself to regulate the temperature.

The new RL-ILM is definitely an objective improvement in both the curvature of the IHS and substrate and of the temperature in our brief testing. The pressure distribution depends on the cooler more than anything and it isn’t always clearly better, but the thermal result tells us that the net result is positive.

Frustratingly, this is optional. Intel is not at a stage where it should be making clear, simple, easy improvements “optional” for motherboard vendors. 

Although we don’t want Intel or AMD to force certain lock-downs, like taking away overclocking features, we do think both companies should enforce a default or baseline configuration that is in the best interests of the consumer, with the option for the consumer to tweak as their motherboard allows once exiting default settings.

In this situation, we do think Intel should just bite the bullet and force the better solution. It may be a situation where board partners had already purchased millions of these older mechanisms. Regardless, Intel has at least improved its mechanism. It is technically slightly more expensive than the original ILM, but since we’re talking pennies, we’d like to see this forced in the next generation as the standard ILM since it is just better. Intel needs to stop taking a soft-handed approach to its partners and taking the small victories when it can get them.

This doesn’t kill the contact frame market, though: That’ll still provide uplift, as the RL-ILM remains a mid-step improvement without going full flat like the prior contact frames we’ve tested.

That’s it for this one. We probably won’t do a ton of Arrow Lake follow-up testing since it doesn’t make any sense to buy right now, but we may explore a few other features.


Best CPU Coolers We've Tested (2024): Thermals, Noise Levels, & Value

17 décembre 2024 à 22:59
Best CPU Coolers We've Tested (2024): Thermals, Noise Levels, & Valuejimmy_thang December 17, 2024

Our round-up includes the best CPU coolers for value, budget, noise-normalized thermals in both air and liquid categories, best mechanical design, and best overall.

The Highlights

  • Best Overall CPU Cooler of 2024: ID-Cooling A720
  • Best Value CPU Cooler: Thermalright Frozen Prism
  • Best Budget CPU Cooler: ID-Cooling SE-214-XT
  • Best Mechanical Design CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 G2

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN Soldering & Project Mat for a high-quality work surface with extreme heat resistance. These purchases directly fund our operation, including our build-out of the hemi-anechoic chamber for our acoustic testing! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

Today, we’re rounding-up some of the best CPU coolers that we’ve tested in recent years, including air and liquid coolers.

This is a continuation of our favorite series each year, where we get to have some fun comparing only the best-of-the-best products we looked at and avoid the usual disappointments. But there was some huge news this year: DeepCool got banned and is now gone from the US market. With that, a power vacuum has formed among cooler manufacturers, and Thermalright’s former nemesis has been replaced with Arctic and ID Cooling aggressively trying to fill it. We can’t say that was on our bingo card.

Editor's note: This was originally published on December 15, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Camera

Andrew Coleman

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


These tests will include results from our new 250W and 200W Intel heat loads in addition to our 200W and 123W AMD heat loads. The categories this year are for Best Overall CPU Cooler, Best Budget CPU Cooler, Best Value CPU Cooler, Best Noise-Normalized Thermals, and Best Mechanical Design. Let’s get started.

Setting Expectations

These Best Of articles are intended to get newcomers up to speed quickly, so we won’t go into the same crazy depth we normally do for the standalone reviews. Each of the coolers that has a review will be linked in the description below so that you can find the full details if you want them, including all the 3D laser scanning, pressure maps, and downsides. This article will be more of a flyover.

We’re testing both air and liquid coolers for this one. We’ve added a lot of coolers to the charts that aren’t in our prior reviews, specifically tested for this round-up, so there’s new data mixed with old in here.

Additionally, keep in mind that our noise testing methodology changes between charts. For the AMD platform, we use our old room-scale noise testing.

For our Intel platform we just added, we’re testing in our hemi-anechoic chamber with a lower threshold of 25dBA normalization in a noise floor around 14 dBA.

As always, for cooler round-ups, we can only discuss coolers we’ve directly had hands-on time with. There are hundreds of coolers out there. We have a pretty good cross-section of the big options, but if you don’t see exactly what you’re looking for, we’d encourage you to check other content and expand your research.

You can find the full charts on our CPU coolers Mega Charts page. As a reminder, gamersnexus.net is a free website that is totally free from third-party ads and funded by the audience. We just got done running another 18 cooler tests on a 250W and 200W Intel platform with noise-normalized results in our hemi-anechoic chamber.

That’ll set us up. If you want to check out our Best CPUs and Best Cases round-ups, those are already live. All the review links and product links are in the description. Let’s get into it.

Overview: Best CPU Coolers of 2024

CategoryCPU CoolerReview
Best Overall CPU Cooler 2024ID Cooling A720
on Amazon
Best Value CPU CoolerThermalright Frozen Prism
on Amazon
on Newegg
Thermalright Strikes Again: $56.90 360mm Liquid Cooler | Frozen Prism Review
Best Budget CPU CoolerID-Cooling SE-214-XT
on Amazon
Best Thermals (Noise-Normalized) CPU CoolerLiquid Freezer III
on Amazon
on Newegg
Noctua NH-D15 G2
on Amazon
on Newegg
The New Best: Arctic Liquid Freezer III 360 & 280 CPU Cooler Review & Benchmarks

Noctua NH-D15 G2 Review & Benchmarks, HBC & LBC Comparison, & Best CPU Coolers
Best Mechanical Design CPU CoolerNoctua NH-D15 G2
on Amazon
on Newegg
Noctua NH-D15 G2 Review & Benchmarks, HBC & LBC Comparison, & Best CPU Coolers

Best Overall CPU Cooler: ID Cooling A720

Amazon

Runner-Up: Arctic Freezer 36

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

Up first, our category for Best Overall CPU cooler this year. This category requires the pricing to be competitive, as it considers the value, the build quality and assembly features, ease-of-installation features, the thermal and acoustic performance, and everything else. Last year, we gave this to the Peerless Assassin 120, which is definitely a GOAT and remains one. This year, we’re giving it to two Thermalright competitors, depending on CPU: Overall, the ID-Cooling A720 gets the award this year. For our Intel bench specifically, we’re giving a tied rank award to the Arctic Freezer 36

Let’s start with the Intel results and the Freezer 36, since that one is isolated as a winner to just this bench.

The most heavily weighted element in favor of the Freezer 36 (read our review) is its price. Arctic said it’d increase the price within just months of launch, but seemingly never did. Even today, the Black model that we tested is about $28 -- an incredible value considering its performance, at least on our Intel bench, and fiercely competitive with the Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 that won our award last year.

Our new Intel 250W noise-normalized charts also include the Peerless Assassin 140, which was eliminated because we discovered quality control issues and variance between our two units that resulted in a 2-degree spread of results, which is actually huge. Unfortunately, one of the Assassin 140 units we have just doesn’t have a good pressure scan or laser scan, while the other is fine. We were able to prove the source of the difference was a combination of the coldplate and mounting hardware.

You can see the two entries for the PA140 here. It’s not because the white model is better, but because the other unit has contact issues.

Anyway, that eliminates the new PA140 even if only the best entry were here. Of the remaining coolers, the Freezer 36 is the best performer after Noctua’s D15 G2 HBC. This is impressive with the Freezer 36’s $28 price. The G2, on the other hand, is $150. Some of this comes from Arctic’s mandate of a contact frame for the Intel version of its Freezer 36, but considering that’s all included in the price, this is a strong positioning. 

One other note here: The D15 2023 model we have here performs a little better than our original D15 from a decade ago, which is a result of minor tweaks or refinement in manufacturing processes along the way. We talked about this in the G2 review. If you’re on an older D15 from around when it launched, it’s likely it is marginally different in performance today.

On to the A720: In our Mega Charts for 200W testing previously, the Freezer 36 fell behind compared to its Intel results with the frame. This reveals our choice that’s tied for the category: The A720, which was also among the top two performers for Intel and is the best performer behind the D15 G2 (read our review) in this 200W, AMD noise-normalized test.

The combined chart-topping performance in both our AMD and Intel test benches is what leads the A720 to the Best Overall rank, with its relatively high build quality and moderate price securing the position. 

At $55, with occasional drops to $50, it’s competitive with the best (like the $150 G2) and manages a 55.2 degree over ambient result on our 200W AMD bench. This improves on the GOATed Peerless Assassin by 1-degree, which does have a little bit of an advantage in price. 

The Intel result improved on the Peerless Assassin 120 (read our review) by 1.6 degrees.

We recently tested the Phantom Spirit as well, but it didn’t outperform our Peerless Assassin 120. The Phantom Spirit EVO has a slightly smaller tower than the Assassin and also has a disadvantage with noisier fans, found in our chamber testing. The Spirit’s fan RPM is higher than the Assassin, but that doesn’t matter when normalizing for noise.

Overall, for the A720, we think it has surprisingly good build quality. The fans are well-fitted to the cooler, with the central fan sinking to benefit VRM cooling as well. We like the simplicity of the black model that we have. The mounting solution is overall straight-forward and the bulked-up 7-heatpipe design helps with coverage across the IHS. The cap plates are a nice touch without overdoing the branding. The central fan also levels-out nicely with the top plates and each fan has rubber bumpers on the corners to reduce vibration, which benefitted it in noise normalizing. Its biggest downside is size, where the 163mm height makes it about 6mm taller than a Peerless Assassin 120. This could limit some cases.

We think ID Cooling and Thermalright both are worth seriously paying attention to in 2025, especially with DeepCool’s disappearance from the US and the Freezer 36 is also worth considering if you happen to go Intel.

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Best Value CPU Cooler: Thermalright Frozen Prism

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

Our Best Value award this year goes to the Thermalright Frozen Prism. Value is judged by a combination of performance for the price, not just pure price. We have a Best Budget category as well for what is simply one of the best, cheap coolers.

Thermalright’s Frozen Prism is an enigma: It’s $52.71 at the time of this writing. This is somehow even cheaper than when we reviewed it. It’s cheap enough that we remain skeptical of whether it may have some sort of defect down the line. In some ways, it seems too good to be true. Concerns we have might involve gunk build-up, but we have no evidence of any such issues at this time. What we do have evidence of is impressive performance: The Frozen Prism (read our review) was a competitive liquid cooler in our testing, brute-forcing much of its performance with a hugely protruding copper coldplate, almost comically so. Our laser scans made this protrusion even more clear, with our pressure maps showing how the cooler leverages the design to brute-force high pressure dead-center, which is where the silicon often sits. 

Even on AMD, which has less-centered silicon than Intel’s prior monolithic CPUs, the pressure spreads wide enough that it’ll catch everything.

In our 200W heat load thermal benchmarks from the review, the Frozen Prism 360 ran at 49.7 degrees Celsius over ambient when noise-normalized, whereas the best liquid cooler we’d tested at the time, the Liquid Freezer III, ran at 46.7 degrees Celsius over ambient. That’s a big difference. At the same time, achieving such close performance at under $60 was previously unheard of.

In our prior test bench configuration for Intel, using a 250W heat load on the 12900KS, the Thermalright Frozen Prism was a chart-topper when at 100% fan speeds. If you look at the 53.2dBA noise levels though, it was incredibly inefficient compared to the Liquid Freezer III 360, which ran at 39.8dBA. This is over a 2x increase in perceived noise to the human ear for the Frozen Prism, yet it drops only a couple degrees. That’s an inefficient trade-off, and although fan speed could be lowered to compensate for noise, it’s clear the cooler isn’t some mastery of thermal and acoustic engineering.

What the Frozen Prism actually is, though, is a mastery of cost engineering. 

The Frozen Prism doesn’t have any real quality-of-life features to speak of or anything abnormal. It delivers what it promises, which is cheap cooling. Our only criticism of the physical construction, beyond some cheaper plastic-y feel of some parts, was the stiffer tubing. This can be worked around.

Thermalright has become known for flooding the market with countless options, to the point where it’s overwhelming even for its own staff to remember them all at tradeshows. The company is saturating listings and driving prices down, which is ultra-competitive and in some ways good for consumers. It’s also pretty cutthroat, and is why we now have name-brand coolers also dropping in price. Following-up its success with the Peerless Assassin 120 in years past, Thermalright is looking for a repeat in liquid. We’ll see how the Prism ages, but so far, it’s competitive, especially in thermals. That’s why the Thermalright Frozen Prism 360 gets our best value award.

Best Budget CPU Cooler: ID-Cooling SE-214-XT

Amazon

The next award is in the same vein, but simpler: Our Best Budget award goes to the ID-Cooling SE-214-XT ARGB and it’s challenging the GOAT in Thermalright. ID-Cooling is vying for Thermalright’s strategy. Last year, we praised it for its overall value -- though it has been shifted into the pure budget category with the Frozen Prism’s addition to our charts.

The SE-214-XT ARGB has dropped in price and is now somehow $15.19 at the time of writing. We normally wouldn’t cite the pennies, but when 19 cents is over 1% of the total price, it suddenly becomes relevant. The SE-214XT ARGB is a simple, 4-heatpipe cooler that revives the approach of the old Hyper 212. It’s dirt cheap, its quality is flimsy, its plastics feel like they’re from McDonald’s toys, its coldplate is spartan, and yet somehow, the thing can handle moderate heat loads. It won’t handle a 250W CPU in our test suite with any level of satisfaction, but it’s good enough for cheaper and lower power CPUs with users on more extreme budgets. This would also be a good consideration if you’re buying a used CPU to save money and need something that ticks the “good enough” box.

In our 123W heat load on AM4 last round, the ID Cooling SE-214-XT ARGB held 58 degrees delta T over ambient when at 37.9 dBA, which had it more noise efficient for the result than the lower-ranked Hyper 212 RGB cooler. It was bordering on Noctua’s aged NH-U12S (watch our review). The Thermalright Assassin Spirit (watch our review) ran at the same noise levels and a little more than 1 degree cooler and is likewise a cheap cooler, but at $16.79, somehow, and this is really weird to say, it’s almost 11% more expensive. What a bizarre world of coolers we’re in.

In our 14900KF 200W heat load and with 100% fan speeds, tested instead in our hemi-anechoic chamber that purchases from the store help fund, we landed at 60.6 degrees Celsius delta T. That had the SE-214-XT ARGB as the worst performer on the chart, but still somehow capable of holding a stable operating temperature. In other words, it’s fine. The next lowest performer is the Scythe FUMA 3 (watch our review) with its combination of two fans, a massive 9 degree improvement.

Our 25dBA noise-normalized testing still has it at the bottom of the charts for this heat load, but even at this slightly reduced speed, it’s still a capable performer.

We wouldn’t call the SE-214-XT “good,” but we do think it’s one of the best in class at its seemingly impossibly cheap price, considering it also has to sit in freight to ship to wherever it’s sold. If you need a cooler to just get a system going, this is a good value. ID Cooling seems poised to challenge Thermalright in the future.

Best Thermals (Noise-Normalized) CPU Cooler: Liquid Freezer III, D15 G2

Liquid Freezer III original review | Newegg | Amazon

D15 G2 original review | Newegg | Amazon

Runner-Up: ID-Cooling Frozn A720

Amazon

This is for the Best Noise-Normalized Thermals, and because we have both liquid and air coolers in the charts for this round-up, we’re assigning the award to one liquid cooler and one air cooler.

The Arctic Liquid Freezer III firmly receives the Best Noise-Normalized thermals award both overall and for liquid, but air can’t be expected to compete at the same level of liquid and large radiators (especially when dropping fan RPM). For air coolers, the award goes to the NH-D15 G2 HBC for Intel (or LBC for AMD), with a runner-up award for ID-Cooling’s Frozn A720. We’ve listed the latter because it’s $100 cheaper than the NH-D15 G2.

This is a thermal category, so we’ll focus on charts.

Starting with the Liquid Freezer III (read our review): Arctic’s revision of its Liquid Freezer II tried a number of new things, like shipping a mandatory contact frame with its Intel variation. This complicates matters and isn’t always for the best. 

We found that Arctic’s contact frame was worse than other options on the market, but its cooler design was such that other options couldn’t be used instead. It was still better than Intel’s ILM, though.

For thermals, the Liquid Freezer III is just as impressive as its predecessor, and its price is similarly competitive. In 200W testing on AMD with our older noise-normalized approach, the Liquid Freezer III was the clear chart topper when we limited the pump speed to 70% (which helped reduce noise and allowed higher fan RPM instead). Running the pump at 100% and sacrificing some of that noise budget for it, it was still tied for second place, behind only itself and matched with a cooler that’s now banned in the US. The next closest non-Arctic option is the Trinity Performance from Lian Li, which is specifically performance-focused in its design. 

In our Intel 250W heat load thermals on a 14900KF (read our review), also noise-normalized, the Liquid Freezer III with its mandatory frame climbs to the top of the chart. It’s ahead of the Frozen Prism by enough to not be margin of error or test variance. It’s also ahead of the Light Loop 360 and predictably ahead of all the air coolers.

The Liquid Freezer III remains a top recommendation of ours, though we do find its contact frame solution frustrating for Intel. On AMD, it’s much simpler.

Moving to the air coolers, the victor of the noise-normalized category on pure performance is the Noctua NH-D15 G2 HBC for our Intel 250W bench or LBC for AMD. Previously, we found that the G2 HBC outperformed even its closest competitor, the A720, by a couple degrees. This gap alone is impressive, as finding more than single-degree differences between air coolers is rare. Noctua’s work on the high base convexity cooler really worked for Intel -- but it’s also the recipient of our Best Mechanical Design category, so we’ll save that discussion.

On AMD 200W testing when noise-normalized, we also found Noctua’s D15 G2 LBC (or its flatter model) to be the current best noise-normalized air cooler result, behind only a huge stack of liquid coolers.

As some honorable mentions for runners-up here, since most are in the market for something cheaper, the ID Cooling Frozn A720 Black takes a clean second place in both our Intel and AMD CPU cooler testing. The Frozn A720 well balanced between the 2 platforms. It’s a relatively large tower that may have some clearance issues in some cases, but its $56 price-point makes it one of the more affordable, competitive coolers, and it’s $100 below the D15 G2.

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Best Mechanical Design CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 G2

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

The next award is for Best Mechanical Design. This covers the total execution of every physical feature of the cooler: Pressure distribution, laser scans, ease-of-installation features, a highly usable design, aesthetics, and the cooling itself. This year, we can easily give it to the Noctua NH-D15 G2. Like last year’s winner for this category, which was the Assassin IV, Noctua’s NH-D15 G2 isn’t a good value cooler (it’s $150, which is insane for an air cooler) -- but this category isn’t for value. We can still appreciate the engineering.

It’s extremely well-built and takes careful consideration of factors often ignored by other cooling solutions. The NH-D15 G2 was secretly developing something similar to what we showed with some custom-made Scythe cooler coldplates that we had Scythe make early this year, which was trying to game the coldplate convexity to better match the CPU heat spreader’s surface concavity or flatness. 

Noctua was working on this for years and launched three models: The standard G2, HBC (or high-base convexity), and the LBC (low base convexity, sorry, Long Beach City) models subtly modify the convexity or flatness of the coldplate to better pair with deeply deformed Intel 13th and 14th Gen CPUs or with the relative flatness of AMD’s AM5 and AM4 CPUs with the LBC. Standard is meant to work on anything. We used our 3D laser scanner that we bought for cooler testing on the D15 G2 and discovered that the names really match the curvature.

We found that this wasn’t a gimmick and that there were actual, measurable and repeatable differences in benchmarks.

Noctua also lands on this list for its careful attention to detail on the fans, which it pairs and matches with slight RPM offsets intentionally in order to avoid a potential beat frequency phenomenon that could be annoying for some users. We have an interview with one of Noctua’s team members to talk about the engineering topics behind this. 

The D15 G2 also had excellent pressure distribution as a combination of its mounting hardware and the coldplate, shown in our mix of pressure maps across AM4 and Intel. 

An included washer mod added some further fine-tuning and small touches, though it was also clearly an attempt to try and bulk-on a value-add with the high price.

Thermally, the D15 G2 didn’t blow away any of the other coolers by massive margins. It’s a good cooler, but spending $120 more than competition doesn’t mean it’s suddenly competing with a 360mm liquid cooler. The G2 with the HBC solution and a washer mod ran at 52.5 degrees delta T in our review results for the 250W Intel heat load, which was better than coolers like the Peerless Assassin by several degrees (and is impressive), but predictably behind a high-performance liquid cooler. The physics just won’t support beating water and the huge surface area of a radiator. Being realistic about performance expectations is healthy, though, and Noctua never claimed that.
We appreciate what Noctua has done with its mechanical and thermal engineering. The company may move slowly, but thus far, it has moved with purpose. As we said in our review, this is the type of thing you buy if you have your heart set on it and can afford it. You are buying Noctua’s name with the G2 and, likewise, its support. It has already delivered one free update for owners of G2s with a relatively minor rattle complaint.


Innovative: be quiet! Light Base 600 Case Review & Benchmarks

13 décembre 2024 à 21:30
Innovative: be quiet! Light Base 600 Case Review & Benchmarksjimmy_thang December 13, 2024

We evaluate be quiet!’s Light Base 600’s specs, alternatives, build quality, design, thermals, and more

The Highlights

  • The Light Base 600 has the ability to lay horizontally, resembling older IBM-style PCs.
  • The Light Base 600 is expensive for a dual-chamber case and our unit had a large panel gap
  • With clever mechanical use of case stands and slotted top and bottom panels, the case can also be inverted or laid-out standard
  • Original MSRP:$150-$195
  • Release Date: September 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN Tear-Down Toolkit to support our AD-FREE reviews and IN-DEPTH testing while also getting a high-quality, highly portable 10-piece toolkit that was custom designed for use with video cards for repasting and water block installation. Includes a portable roll bag, hook hangers for pegboards, a storage compartment, and instructional GPU disassembly cards.

Intro

Today we’re reviewing the Light Base 600 by be quiet!. It’s a big deviation from the company’s monolithic towers with foam padding and is their first dual-chamber case. Be quiet! has gotten attention for designing this case with three presentations in mind: Standard, flat in traditional, old-school “desktop computer” design, and inverted. All of these have been done before, but be quiet!’s approach is simple and overall brilliant: To go flat, you remove the feet by turning them (like screws). To go inverted, you swap the feet to the other panel, which uses a slot-and-groove solution to notch them into place. This is fast enough that you could change it just because you’re bored of it or want to present the glass to a different side of the room.

Editor's note: This was originally published on November 13, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing, Writing

Patrick Lathan

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets
Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


The Light Base 600 is a dual-chamber with four SKUs, ranging from $150 to $195 in price. Our variant is $195 because it’s white and comes with case fans. The Light Base 900 is a larger variation on this. We’re reviewing the 600 since testing for these reviews is a big commitment, but the general concepts apply to both, just scaled up on the 900.

Light Base 600 Specs

Motherboard compatibilityATX, M-ATX, Mini-ITX
Case TypeMidi-Tower
PSUPS2 ATX (not included)
Dimensions (L x W x H in mm)450 x 305 x 435
MaterialSteel (SGCC), ABS, Glass
Light Base 600 LX Weight (kg)12.1 (net) / 14.6 (gross)
Light Base 600 DX Weight (kg)11.5 (net) / 14.0 (gross)
I/O Panel1x USB 3.2 Gen. 2 Type C, 2x USB 3.2 Type A, HD Audio (combined), ARGB controller, Reset button, Power button
PCI Slots7
Drive Baysup to 4x 2.5" (2 included)up to 2x 3.5" (1 included)
Light Base 600 LX Preinstalled fans (mm) / (rpm)Side: 3x Light Wings LX Reversed 120mm PWM
Rear: 1x Light Wings LX 120mm PWM
Light Base 600 DX Preinstalled fans (mm) / (rpm)--
Maximum fans (mm)Top: 2x 140 / 3x 120
Side: 3x 120
Bottom: 2x 140 / 3x 120
Rear: 1x 120
Optional radiators (mm)Top: 120 / 140 / 240 / 280 / 360
Side: 120 / 240
Bottom: 120 / 140 / 240 / 280 / 360
Rear: 120
Maximum Dimensions (mm)CPU cooler: up to 170
PSU: up to 200
GPU: 400
ARGB connector3-pin
MSRPLight Base 600 DX (Black): $150
Light Base 600 DX (White): $160
Light Base 600 LX (Black): $185
Light Base 600 LX (White): $195

Specs copied from manufacturer materials, please read review for our own measurements and opinions

Light Base 600 Alternatives

be quiet!’s key competitors for this include basically everyone, since dual-chamber cases have been so popular in recent years. If you’re thinking of buying this case, other cases you should know about include this quick list:

  • Lian Li’s O11 series, including the Vision, Evo series (watch our review), and other variants, which jump-started this entire case archetype in the current generation
  • Hyte Y60 & Y70, which give a new take on the concept with a cut-corner front that has been picked up by NZXT
  • NZXT’s H5 (watch our review), H7 (watch our review), and H9 series of cases vary in their similarities, but share some concepts
  • Montech’s King 95 and King 65 series, but especially the 95, for affordable dual-chamber options
  • Antec’s C8 cases, which we’ve found to be relatively good thermal performers for the price
  • Corsair’s 6500 Series cases, which we wouldn’t recommend overall (read our review)

And tons of others. We’ve left a lot out, but you get the idea: This is a crowded segment. A lot of these cases are in the $150 to $220 price range. A few are cheaper, like the empty Montech King 95 cases at $90 to $120 and the empty Antec C8, similarly priced.

It’ll be a big fight, but be quiet! does at least immediately differentiate itself with some unique features, one of which is their giant light bar that wraps the case. It was done this way so be quiet! could achieve the rotation without losing symmetry when you move the case around. In fact, all of this case had to be designed with symmetry in mind. That’s what gives the cheaper flexibility than more mechanically-intensive inversion processes from other cases -- but it’s also limiting in some areas.

Light Base 600 Basics

For the basics: Our version of this case includes 4x 120mm fans pre-installed as side intake and rear exhaust when it's in its traditional configuration. You could also shift these to the bottom as intake in a traditional orientation or, if rotated flat, they could be used as a side-to-side flow path. This on its own is pretty interesting and is one of the tests we ran. 

Other small fit-and-finish issues include a panel gap between the glass front and side, which is large enough that you’d need a taxi to get from one side to the other... The glass panels also diverge as they approach the bottom, with the bottom edge protruding slightly despite a flush top edge. We’ll come back to the fit-and-finish detail later though.

Getting into the big details:

The Build

We've criticized be quiet! in the past for its complicated case inversion processes. When we reviewed the Dark Base Pro 900, it took about 45 minutes to figure out disassembling and reassembling the case and sorting through the ridiculous variety and amount of screws and hardware. be quiet! must have taken that criticism to heart (even if 7 years later), because the Light Base 600 can be inverted in under ten seconds with no real screws at all (the design doc says 30 seconds, but that's with a system inside). 

The case feet can be pulled off by rotating them 90 degrees, then either placed on the top panel to invert the case or on the side panel to flip it on its side. It's not perfect: the feet don't lock and they go crooked as you slide the case around. They also feel fragile enough to damage by hand if positioned in the wrong spot. The ease of use outweighs the downsides, but the downsides were avoidable in design. Either way, once it’s done, these concerns go away.

This case also includes one of the simplest vertical GPU conversion systems we've seen. You take out all the horizontal slot covers, screw a bar across the back of the case, and adjust the built-in GPU support down a couple of notches.

The horizontal orientation is the most unique in the current era of computing, though it definitely used to be the standard. This old style is so liked in the retro scene that SilverStone made an April Fool’s case that accidentally became popular enough that there’s some real demand to make it.

The downside is that the Light Base 600 isn't a particularly small case, and because of its dual-chamber design, it's more than 32cm tall on its side. The 900 has even larger dimensions.

Backed against a wall, the case requires a minimum of 50cm up to the front edge of the case, requiring a deeper table to comfortably accommodate a keyboard and mouse if placed directly in front of the case. 

The dimensions make it impractical to use in the old IBM PC layout, but if you want to try it anyway, we recommend using a monitor arm rather than resting weight on the glass panel. We wouldn’t recommend setting it up with a monitor directly on it, especially since tempered glass can shatter without impact in some situations.

With the total monitor arm and monitor configuration, the setup could be made to look pretty unique -- we like the concept like this. Most of our desks are either 24” or 30” deep, with a few at 36” for filming. With that old-school setup with the computer right in front of the user, the 30” deep desks would only have 10” (or 25 cm) to spare for the keyboard and mouse. Plan your desk sizing appropriately. It’d obviously not be a problem if the system is off to the side of the keyboard and mouse. 

The desk in the image above is 30” deep and the lowest monitor can conflict with the top of the case, but this gives you an idea for sizing. You could definitely build a good-looking retro setup with the right color lighting and furniture, not that the 600 is confined to that style, but it would look good. You would just need a deep table. 

Fittingly for a case called the Light Base, there are dual LED and fan hubs in the back chamber. These have a total of 12x 4-pin fan and 12x 3-pin ARGB connections. The 600 LX's four stock fans occupy four of each type of plug (no daisy-chaining), but that still leaves eight unused pairs. Each hub has its own power and control inputs, allowing for two separate zones.

Our key focus is performance, but when LEDs are done, we still look for quality. We think the lighting is executed excellently; the diffuser bars work well and the LED animations are smooth. It looks good in a night-time or lights-out setup. 

Out of the box, all LEDs are set to be quiet! orange. The manual provides a full table of built-in lighting effects and instructions for syncing with external input. We thought the manual was well-written here. The cabling for the stock ARGB fans is a little overwhelming, but the light bars and their associated wires are tucked completely out of the way. 

Our one complaint is that the LED button and the reset button are exactly the same size and have no labels - though you’d probably only make that mistake once.

The Light Base 600 is another case without a support pillar between its two glass panels, giving us a top panel that could theoretically bend down. In practice, the top and bottom panels are interlocked with the front panel, keeping it solid as long as the case is assembled.

The steel side panel is fully ventilated, although the side intake vent and the PSU are the only areas where that's necessary. The side filter is removable for cleaning or additional airflow, which is an advantage over related designs like the HS 420 (read our review) and HYTE Y70 (read our review) where the side filters are glued in place. We’re happy to see that flexibility from be quiet!. Unfortunately, the top and bottom filters aren’t as flexible and are built into their respective panels: if you set up a horizontal build, some fans will exhaust through a filter that isn’t intended to be removed, which will create unnecessary impedance.

Primary radiator support in the case’s traditional orientation is at the top and bottom of the case, which both support up to 360mm sizes. 360mm radiators aren't officially supported in the side mount and most won't fit at all with the 39.6cm of clearance between the top and bottom of the case.

The Light Base 600 has cutouts for back-connect boards, but normal ATX boards overlap all the cutouts along the bottom edge. Small fan and I/O cables can be snaked through the back-connect holes anyway, but we expect clear, premeditated cable routes. The storage behind the motherboard is deep, as is typical for dual-chamber cases, but it can be difficult to work in once that space is occupied by cables. The cable tie points are hard to reach once PSU cables are in the way, with the cable cover, HDD bracket, and fan and lighting hubs contributing to a cramped feeling. We ended up just wadding all the cables into the channel and snapping the cable cover shut on top. It’s still easier than the Lancool 207, at least (read our review).

We'd like to see a way to screw the cover down, but the cable channel is deep enough that it's unlikely to be necessary.

Drive storage is a complicating factor for cable management. The stock Light Base 600 only supports 2x 2.5" drives and 1x 3.5" drive, with the two smaller drives mounted to the cable cover, which requires leaving enough slack to open it. The stock bottom bracket can only mount a single 3.5" drive, but it has room for a be quiet! HDD Cage 2 (purchased separately) which fits either an additional 3.5" drive or two 2.5" drives. Using the bottom bracket at all reduces access to cable cutouts and one of the two fan and lighting hubs.

There's a gap between the two glass panes; it's a matter of personal taste as to whether that's a problem, but it's definitely intentional and known since the case shipped with a strip of cardboard in that gap. 

The gaps where light bars meet (top and bottom) definitely aren't intentional, though, and be quiet! didn’t do anything to minimize that.

This is the most brightly-lit, attention-grabbing area of the case, and it needs to look perfect. The gaps don't belong on a $195 case the way our case is set up, and the deviation at the top and bottom edges of the glass makes for a messy execution where other areas are done to a higher standard. The panel gap isn’t great for looks, but could contribute to dust ingress, especially in a horizontal orientation where it would be exposed directly up. We all know how dust collects on glass surfaces.

Some smaller points we want be quiet! to address in future iterations: First, the PSU fitment was unnecessarily tight, to the point that we had a harder time than necessary getting it installed. 

Second, even though the GPU support still works when the case is inverted, it may be weaker since it can't be flipped. 

Light Base 600 Thermal Benchmarks

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Our model came with 3 reverse blade fans on the side and a traditional fan on the back.

We have a few key configurations of the Light Base 600 that we’re testing:

  • Stock, which is standing in its traditional orientation with the included fans where they come
  • Stock without a side filter
  • Inverted, which is self-evident
  • Flat with the fans left where they were, which becomes bottom intake. For the horizontal case testing, we removed the rubber bumpers in the side panel and we installed the feet in those slots. If we were testing the case without the feet there and just on the rubber bumpers then the bottom intake would be completely suffocated and far worse than what you’re going to see in our tests
  • Flat with left intake and right exhaust

CPU Thermals: Full Speed (Light Base Only)

We’ll start with a chart of just the Light Base results.

With all case fans at full speed, the Light Base 600 LX averaged 48 degrees Celsius above ambient all-core and 52 on the P-Cores in its default configuration. Removing the optional side filter reduced the all-core temperature by 1.7 degrees, which is a large drop for a side filter only. It’s relatively restrictive.

Fully inverting the case didn't change temperatures enough to exit the margin of error, which is encouraging since, for the most part, it shouldn’t. The GPU would be most prone to change here.

Flipping the case on its side definitely hurt CPU thermal performance, with an all-core average of 51 and P-Core average of 55. Left in their stock positions, the three intake fans are obstructed by the desk surface when the case is put on its side. We intended to fix that with the left intake/right exhaust horizontal configuration, but with a focus on GPU thermals, so CPU thermals didn't change significantly versus the first horizontal result. You can see that here.

Flipping the case on its side with the intake fans against the desk surface also raised the noise level up to 32.1 dBA, versus 30.9 dBA in the stock or inverted configurations. This is actually noticeable. It’s also really cool: Previously, our less precise testing approach to acoustics would not have been able to surface this difference in numbers even though you’d be able to hear it. That’s because we were limited by the noise floor and measurement tools. Now, with our hemi-anechoic chamber that the audience has helped us build, we can actually detect with tools what the human ear can already hear. That’s why we have this chamber. People forget that ears are incredible at their job and that representing it with a microphone is very difficult, so when they ask why we’d build such a chamber, this is exactly the reason. We can get closer to measuring what you actually perceive.

CPU Thermals: Full Speed (Competitive)

Here’s the full chart.

It's fitting that be quiet!'s case is among the quietest on the chart when at 100% speed, bracketed by the HYTE Y60 at 30.1 dBA and Fractal Pop Air (watch our review) at 31.3 dBA, but there are no obvious noise-damping features other than the use of Light Wings fans.

The Y60 (watch our review) may be equally quiet, but it's also much hotter with just its stock fans, averaging 51 degrees all-core versus the 600 LX's 48, so that is an advantage for the LX. We know based on past experience that the Antec C8 is the dual-chamber case to beat in terms of overall thermals, 46 degrees in this particular test (albeit with a higher noise level of 37.1 dBA), while the (glass-fronted) King 95 Pro (read our coverage) averaged 43 degrees (at 36.8 dBA). We'll get to noise-normalized thermals in a moment.

GPU Thermals: Full Speed (Be Quiet!)

GPU full speed is up now: 

The Light Base 600 LX kept our GPU at 52 degrees Celsius above ambient with the memory temperature at 60 and hotspot at 68. Removing the side filter improved temperatures by 2.2 degrees for the GPU, which is a huge climb for just a filter. be quiet! has room to improve this area. 

Inversion had a mildly negative effect, raising the GPU average to 54 degrees. The horizontal configuration was worse still at 55 degrees for the GPU, 63 for the memory, and 71 for the hotspot. Keeping the case horizontal but shifting to the left intake/right exhaust configuration dramatically lowered temperatures, down to 41 GPU, 44 memory, and 53 hotspot. This is the equivalent of a bottom-intake configuration in a case that's oriented normally, but with unobstructed intake.

GPU Thermals: Full Speed (Competitive)

Here’s the competitive chart. All of the results with the fans in their stock locations are among the weakest on the chart, with the baseline out-of-the-box result falling behind even the Y60. The left intake/right exhaust configuration performed significantly better, tying the C8 ARGB's 41 degree GPU average and significantly outperforming the King 95 Pro's 46 degree average. As a reminder, this was done with just the included fans. All we did was move them. We didn’t want to add fans because it starts to become arbitrary and potentially unfair, but moving them really helped here. The horizontal configuration has the greatest potential for cooling, since a clear unidirectional airflow path can be created without obstruction. You’re not dealing with angled intake from the side, so there is a huge amount of potential here.

CPU Thermals: Noise-Normalized

The Light Base 600 LX's low noise at full speed means it has a shot in our noise normalized test, where all case fans are tuned down to hit our 27 dBA threshold. We normalize these in our hemi-anechoic chamber to get the granularity needed for a fair test.

50 degrees Celsius above ambient all-core and 54 P-Core ties the Antec C8 ARGB (read our review), but the King 95 Pro averaged 47 all-core, and cases with simple front intake like the Antec Flux Pro (read our review) and Lian Li Lancool 207 continue to dominate the top of the chart. 

GPU Thermals: Noise-Normalized

GPU thermal performance was already weak with the case fans at full speed, and with reduced fan speeds, the 600 LX is the hottest case on this chart other than the King 65 Pro. This is a strong argument for the horizontal left-to-right airflow configuration. These were all at the same noise levels. We’ve normalized them for this test. This is not a good result for be quiet!.

Standardized Fans: GPU Thermals

Because we were forced to mount the 140mm fans in the bottom of the case for our standardized fan test, we have an opportunity to see the case's bottom intake performance. 

An average GPU temperature of 44 degrees Celsius above ambient is more competitive than the other GPU thermal results we've seen from the 600 LX so far, close to the King 95 Pro and C8 ARGB's tied 43 degree averages, but that still only places the LX in the middle of the chart. This is also effectively a test of the Light Base 600 DX, since we would have performed all tests on that case using our standardized set of fans.

VRM Thermals: Noise-Normalized

Finishing off with VRM and system memory thermals during the noise normalized test, the 600 LX's performance is again unimpressive. 35 degrees above ambient for the VRM is warmer than the C8 ARGB's 33 degrees and the King 95 Pro's 31 degrees, and although the stack is ordered differently for memory temperatures, both the C8 ARGB and King 95 Pro were cooler than the 600 LX's 27 degrees. We also know from our full speed results that these sensors didn't respond strongly to the horizontal left intake/right exhaust reconfiguration.

Light Base 600 Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

The Light Base 600 LX is on the expensive end of dual-chamber cases with included fans, especially when taking into account the thermal performance of the Antec C8 ARGB and King 95 Pro. Both of those cases also have fanless SKUs that are cheaper than the Light Base 600's fanless SKUs. 

The primary reason for buying the Light Base 600 over any of those other options (including the NZXT H9 Flow, which we haven't tested) is the wraparound light bar, so we're at least happy to see that the light bar looks good in person, with bright, evenly-diffused LEDs. It was critical that they executed on this feature well and they did do a good job on it. There were a couple caveats surrounding the fit and finish, like the panel flushness.

The horizontal option is also a unique selling point, but it's one that few people have the desk space to try. But this is a well-liked presentation layout, it ends up looking better than you might expect when looking at it vertically, and it’s a unique feature that is also executed overall well. It’s also mechanically simple. You’ll just have to plan your furniture more than typical, which isn’t so bad once you’re aware of the sizing.

If you do buy a Light Base 600 and you want to maximize thermal performance, we suggest using the horizontal configuration with side intake fans pushing directly into the GPU and exhaust fan(s) pulling hot air out of the opposite side. 

A few things to be careful of: If using a closed-loop liquid cooler, or “AIO,” with a pump in the block, you wouldn’t want to bottom mount it when the case is on its side. You should never bottom-mount a liquid cooler with the pump at the highest point in the loop, which that would do. Mounting the radiator to the side -- which was the “top” before going flat -- would be best. This will still put one side of the radiator tank at the highest point, which can create some bubbling noises in loops with less liquid or as they permeate over a 5-year period, but wouldn’t lead to catastrophic failure like a bottom-mount will.

All of this changes if you have the pump somewhere else in the loop, like the radiator.

It's good to see some movement from be quiet!, but although back-connect compatibility is fairly new, dual-chamber cases and ARGB LEDs are years-old trends. It'll take some time for the company to become a leader in cases again, rather than a follower. The company has also deviated from some of be quiet!’s expectations, which isn’t a bad thing. Fractal deviated as well and it worked out well for them. 

We like the case overall for its unique presentation. It is mechanically simple and it works well. Aside from that, there are no revolutionary changes to the build process or features. 

But once cases clear a bar for acceptable performance and for functionality, what matters most is that you like the way it looks. This case clears those bars. If you’re a big fan of the layout, we’re not seeing any major detractors to advise against a purchase.


Intel Arc B580 'Battlemage' GPU Review & Benchmarks vs. NVIDIA RTX 4060, AMD RX 7600, & More

11 décembre 2024 à 21:09
Intel Arc B580 'Battlemage' GPU Review & Benchmarks vs. NVIDIA RTX 4060, AMD RX 7600, & Morejimmy_thang December 11, 2024

We test the B580’s ray tracing capabilities, power efficiency, and performance across numerous games at 4K, 1440p, and 1080p

The Highlights

  • The B580 represents the first graphics card that uses Intel’s Battlemage GPU architecture
  • The B580’s idle power consumption needs improvement and we couldn’t get the GPU to run Cyberpunk at RT Ultra settings
  • The B580 highlights how Battlemage has improved tremendously over Intel’s Alchemist GPU architecture
  • Original MSRP: $250
  • Release Date: December 13, 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

Intel’s Battlemage B580 GPU launches at $250. In our testing, the card has improved massively over the company’s original Alchemist GPU launch, so it’s already in a better spot than previously. By price, the B580 is positioned to compete with the NVIDIA RTX 4060 $300 GPU and the AMD RX 7600 at $250. Both NVIDIA and AMD have new GPUs launching in early January, but until they’re out, we can’t evaluate their performance.
What we can say is that, out of the gate, the B580 is far more reliable than the Alchemist cards were at launch. Intel has definitely improved. It still has issues and it was still shipping driver updates until the last minute of testing, but the company has objectively improved.

Editor's note: This was originally published on December 12, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing

Patrick Lathan

Testing, Editing

Mike Gaglione

Chart QC

Jeremy Clayton

Camera

Tim Phetdara
Andrew Coleman

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


Frametimes have largely been smoothed over, but remain a potential pain point for Intel in some games. Idle power consumption is also a pain point; however, overall value and throughput are competitive, and ray tracing performance is particularly competitive, especially against AMD.

We also found that the B580 scales extremely well with higher resolutions, seeing the most uplift over the 4060 or 7600 at 4K and 1440p, and often losing that ground at 1080p.

It’s an interesting review packed with a ton of new information, including a complete overhaul of our GPU test bench to an overclocked 9800X3D platform.

Let’s get started.

Intel B580 Overview, Pricing, & Specs

Here’s a quick refresher on the current market for GPU prices, but remember that the RTX 50 series is rumored to launch next month, followed by rumors of new AMD GPUs. 

GPU Price Comparison | GamersNexus | Early December, 2024

Newegg PriceAmazon Price
Intel B580 (MSRP $250)$250NFS
Intel A770$230$280
Intel A750$240$200
Intel A580$170$170
NVIDIA RTX 4060 Ti 8GB$400$400
NVIDIA RTX 4060$300$295
NVIDIA RTX 3060$280$270
NVIDIA RTX 3050$170$170
AMD RX 6600$190$200
AMD RX 6600 XT$240$260
AMD RX 7600$250$252
AMD RX 7700 XT$400$420

For today: The B580 has an MSRP of $250 and was available for preorder on Newegg at this price. The prior Intel A770 is available for $230 to $280 for the 16GB model, with the A750 at $200 to $240 and A580 at $170. NVIDIA’s RTX 4060 is a main competitor, typically at $300, alongside the RX 7600 at price parity with the B580. These will be the two key comparisons.

One step up, the 4060 Ti 8GB and 7700 XT are both around $400 to $420 right now, making them primary upgrade options another class up.

Intel B580 Specs

We already covered the B580 specs in a video, but here are the basics again:

The card launches ahead of the B570 (watch our coverage), which launches next month. The B580 is a relatively small 20 Xe2 core configuration on the Battlemage architecture, making it smaller than the A750 or A770 in configuration size. Intel hasn’t yet announced 700-series cards in the Battlemage series.

The B580 has a 190W default TDP, runs on 1x 8-pin power connector, and is cut down to PCIe 4.0 x8, which is a potential downside for anyone on old platforms. We’d have to look at that separately in the future.

Test Bench Overhaul

We have a brand new test bench for all of this. We’ve moved from an overclocked 12700K to an AMD 9800X3D, which marks the first time we’ve used an AMD CPU as our permanent GPU test bench solution in the nearly 16 years we’ve been running now. The 9800X3D gives us far better headroom and scaling to see the impact of high-end GPUs that should be coming out soon. We have it overclocked to 5.4GHz all-core and under a 420mm Arctic Liquid Freezer III.

GPU Game Test Suite | 2025 Methodology | GamersNexus

GameResolution & SettingsRelease Year
Black Myth: Wukong Benchmark1080p/High
1440p/High
4K/High
*Upscaling is not used. 100% for all tests. Game forces selection, selected FSR. Full RT disabled.
2024
(Ray Tracing) Black Myth: Wukong Benchmark1080p/High Raster/Medium RT/FSR Quality
1440p/High Raster/Medium RT/FSR Quality
4K/High Raster/Medium RT/FSR Quality
*FSR selected as upscaling method for all tests. Scaling set to "FSR Quality" equivalent. Full Ray Tracing set to Medium.
2024
F1 241080p/High
1440p/High
4K/High
2024
(Ray Tracing) F1 241080p/RT Ultra
1440p/RT Ultra
4K/RT Ultra
*Based on Ultra High preset.
2024
Dragon's Dogma 21080p/Max
1440p/Max
4K/Max
*All settings maxed except for RT (this is not an in-game preset).
2024
(Ray Tracing) Dragon's Dogma 21080p/Max RT
1440p/Max RT
4K/Max RT
*All settings maxed (this is not an in-game preset).
2024
Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail Benchmark1080p/Maximum
1440p/Maximum
4K/Maximum
2024
Resident Evil 4 (2023)1080p/Prioritize Graphics
1440p/Prioritize Graphics
4K/Prioritize Graphics
2023
(Ray Tracing) Resident Evil 4 (2023)1080p/FSR Quality/Max RT
1440p/FSR Quality/Max RT
4K/FSR Quality/Max RT
*Based on "Maximum" preset.
2023
Baldur's Gate 31080p/DX11/Ultra-Custom
1440p/DX11/Ultra-Custom
4K/DX11/Ultra-Custom
*Custom settings.
2023
Starfield1080p/Ultra
1440p/Ultra
4K/Ultra
2023
Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty1080p/Ultra
1440p/Ultra
4K/Ultra
2023
(Ray Tracing) Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty1080p/RT Medium
1440p/RT Medium
4K/RT Medium
1080p/RT Ultra
1440p/RT Ultra
4K/RT Ultra
*Based on Ray Tracing: Ultra and Ray Tracing: Medium presets.
2023
Dying Light 2 Stay Human1080p/DX12/High-Custom
1440p/DX12/High-Custom
4K/DX12/High-Custom
*Based on "High" preset but with DX12 and associated features.
2022
(Ray Tracing) Dying Light 2 Stay Human1080p/DX12/FSR Quality/RT High Quality
1440p/DX12/FSR Quality/RT High Quality
4K/DX12/FSR Quality/RT High Quality
*Based on "High Quality Raytracing" preset.
2022
Total War: Warhammer III1080p/Ultra
1440p/Ultra
4K/Ultra
2022
NOTESDynamic resolution, upscaling, VSync, and VRS are disabled unless otherwise noted, even if they would normally be enabled by the in-game preset. RT features are disabled in tests not prefixed with (Ray Tracing). Games are run in exclusive fullscreen mode if available.

Our games list includes these. Not all of these will be shown in each review, but they are all tested. We’ve added Dragon’s Dogma 2 from 2024, Black Myth: Wukong from 2024, Baldur’s Gate 3 from 2023 -- which will be too easy for high-end GPUs, but is a good match for the B580, Starfield from 2023, Final Fantasy 14: Dawntrail from 2024, Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty from 2023, and all the others you see above.

Cards Tested

CardTime Tested
NVIDIA RTX 4090 CybertankDecember, 2024
AMD RX 7800 XT RefDecember, 2024
EVGA RTX 3060 XC Black 12GBDecember, 2024
ASUS RTX 4060 DualDecember, 2024
Intel Arc B580 RefDecember, 2024
Sparkle Arc A580 OrcDecember, 2024
EVGA RTX 3050 XC Black 8GBDecember, 2024
XFX RX 6600 COREDecember, 2024
PowerColor RX 6600 XT Red DevilDecember, 2024
XFX RX 6500 XT BlackDecember, 2024
Sparkle Arc A750 TitanDecember, 2024
AMD RX 7600 RefDecember, 2024
Acer Arc A770 BiFrost 16GBDecember, 2024
EVGA RTX 3060 Ti FTW3December, 2024
XFX RX 6700 XT MERC BlackDecember, 2024
NVIDIA RTX 4060 Ti FE 8GBDecember, 2024
EVGA RTX 2060 KODecember, 2024
EVGA GTX 1060 SSC 6GBDecember, 2024
XFX RX 7700 XT BlackDecember, 2024
NVIDIA RTX 4070 FEDecember, 2024
Sapphire RX 7900 XTX NitroDecember, 2024
EVGA GTX 1070 SCDecember, 2024
Sparkle Arc A380 ElfDecember, 2024
Colorful RTX 3070 BiliBiliDecember, 2024
EVGA GTX 1650 SC Ultra GamingDecember, 2024

We’ve tested about 25 GPUs for this launch. That list does not include the RTX 4080, 4080 Super, 4070 Ti or Super, 7900 XT or GRE, and similar high-end cards. You can find scaling data in our prior benchmarks for those.

We added the 7900 XTX and RTX 4090 for a ceiling. 

The reason for the cuts is time -- rolling into the end of year with team scheduling and our own travel, we wanted to allocate more testing time to older hardware or lower-end stuff to represent users considering an upgrade. That means we cut the high-end stuff for the GTX 1060 (watch our revisit), 1070 (watch our review), RTX 2060 (watch our review), GTX 1650 (watch our review), and similar cards. We’ll add higher-end GPUs in for the January launches, but they’re out of the price range of the B580.

As far as cards with multiple VRAM configurations, we ran the “default” or first-launched VRAM configuration wherever an option was present. 

Finally on the test bench side, we’ve added power efficiency testing and idle power consumption testing with calibrated tools.

We have a lot more to test, but this article is huge already and we have a busy time ahead of us with some travel.

Let’s get into the benchmarks.

Grab a GN15 All-Over Print Component Mouse Mat for a high-quality mousing surface that'll fit your keyboard & mouse. These mouse mats use a high-quality yellow rubber underside, a blue stitched border for fray resistance, and are covered in PC parts. This is the best way to support our work and keeps us ad-free to support consumer-first reviews!

B580 Gaming Benchmarks

FFXIV - 4K

Final Fantasy 14: Dawntrail is up now at 4K first.

At 4K, the Intel Arc B580 ran at 47 FPS AVG, with lows exceptionally close to the average. The B580 has a staggering lead of 28.6% over the RTX 4060, which is elevated as compared to its lead at 1440p and 1080p. The RTX 4060 (watch our review) is behind in lows also; although they remain consistent with its average.

The B580 also leads the RTX 4060 Ti at 15% ahead, the A770 by 16.5%, A750 by an impressive 27.9%. The RX 7600 is around the same price as the B580, but struggles at 4K in this test at 31.5 FPS AVG.

Users of the GTX 1060 6GB card would experience an uplift of about 193% moving to the B580, with the 1070 seeing 110% and the 3050 similar.

As we saw in our 4060 review, the 3060 Ti (watch our review) has a massive memory bandwidth advantage over its successors and embarrasses the 4060 and 4060 Ti cards here.

From what we’ve tested lately that’s better than the B580. That list includes the $450-$480 7800 XT at 22% better and the RTX 4070 non-Super at 27% better, among the flagships.

FFXIV - 1440p

At 1440p, the gap narrows in some places. The B580 is running at a completely playable 86 FPS AVG with good lows. Its lead over lower cards has decreased: 3.4% against the 4060 Ti (watch our review), 9% against the A770 (down from 16.5%), 19% over the A750 and RTX 4060 (from around 28% before), and 31% over the RX 7600 (watch our review).

The RX 7800 XT jumps to 40% from 22% and the 4070 jumps to 36% from 27%. The $400 RX 7700 XT (watch our review) leads at 98 FPS to 86 FPS AVG on the B580, but is more expensive.

The B580 looks good here despite a reduction in its lead from 4K.

FFXIV - 1080p

1080p squishes everything together and reduces the B580’s advantage.

The B580 at 124 FPS AVG is now just 10 FPS ahead of the A770 and RTX 4060, or about 10%. The B580 went from a 28.6% lead at 4K to 19% at 1440p to 10% over the RTX 4060. 

At 1440p, the RX 6700 XT (watch our review) was marginally below the B580 and is now ahead at 1080p. The B580 also had nearly a 15% lead over the RTX 4060 Ti at 4K, but now is behind. The 4060 Ti leads at 133 FPS, or an advantage of 7.6%. That’s a huge swing.

Starfield - 1440p

Starfield is up now, tested at 1440p.

The B580 isn’t as strong in this one as it was elsewhere. Starfield is also a game that was not functional on Arc at its launch, so running at all is already better than last time -- though that’s a low bar.

The B580 ends up behind the RX 7600, RTX 4060, and 4060 Ti in this benchmark. It’s beating the A770, A750, and A580 cards from Intel’s last gen.

The 4060 leads by about 17%, with the 4060 Ti in an insurmountable 42% lead. The 7600 is closer, at 5% ahead. 

The biggest downside here is the frametime pacing. Intel’s B580 struggles with 0.1% lows and 1% lows, which are indicative of a deeper per-frame problem that requires a frametime plot to investigate. We’ll explore that later in this review, closer to the conclusion.

Starfield - 1080p

At 1080p, the B580 ran at 51 FPS AVG, giving the RTX 4060 a 10 FPS AVG lead, but an even bigger lead in lows. Although the 4060 has an advantage of 21% in average framerate, the real difference is in frametime pacing that we’ll see closer at the end of this review.

The RX 7600’s lead is now 4%, with the 4060 Ti at 44%.

Intel’s B580 leads the A770 by an impressive generational 16%, despite a lower core count configuration. That’s a huge win for Intel over its own hardware. Its lead over the A750 is 27%. Despite these gains, the B580 is not that competitive in Starfield.

Resident Evil 4 - 4K

Resident Evil at 4K is pretty interesting. The B580 roughly matches the 4060 Ti, with a marginal deficit on 0.1% lows. The lead over the 4060 is massive, benefiting the B580 by 31% in average FPS. It also holds an advantage in lows. The lead over the 7600 is 24%, with the generational lead over the A580 and A750 alike impressive.

This is a strong showing for Intel’s B580.

Resident Evil 4 - 1440p

At 1440p, the B580 maintains a competitive position: The card is fully playable at 85 FPS AVG with overall OK lows, albeit lower proportionally versus the neighboring A770 and RTX 3060 Ti. With the resolution drop, the 4060 Ti now leads the B580 by 7% from its rough equivalence before. B580 benefits from its memory bandwidth at 4K.

The lead over the RTX 4060 is reduced to a still-noteworthy 22.5%, down from 31%. The 7600 lead is reduced from 24% at 4K to 18% at 1440p.

Resident Evil 4 - 1080p

1080p weakens the B580’s position overall. The 4060 Ti now moves to 10% ahead. The B580’s lead over the 4060 is reduced to 19%, although this is still a big lead. Most notably though, we see the frametimes deviate more from the average: The 128 FPS AVG is accompanied by 74 FPS and 63 FPS 1% and 0.1% lows with the B580, whereas proportionally and based on neighbors, these figures should be in the 100-110 territory. The drop jumps out as different from the rest.

Baldur’s Gate 3 - 4K

Baldur’s Gate 3 is up now, one of the most played games in the last year. Intel needs to do well in these types of critically acclaimed titles. Last round, we saw that Intel did better with Vulkan in Baldur’s Gate 3 than it did with Dx11, but was still disadvantaged in both APIs.

With Dx11 and 4K/Ultra, the B580 ran at 45 FPS AVG. The lows are reduced versus its immediate neighbors in the 4060 and 7600, both of which would be better experiences by frametimes alone, despite all looking approximately equal in average FPS. This is another for our frametime charts list at the end.

The B580 improves on the A750 by 6% and the A580 by 21%, falling behind the A770 in this one. The Arc cards are generally less competitive in frametime consistency in this game; however, they have significantly improved in their performance from a year ago.

Baldur’s Gate 3 - 1440p

Here’s 1440p.

The B580 ran at 74 FPS AVG, which is completely playable in this game. The lows are also acceptable in an objective sense -- it’s not a “bad” experience, but it’s also not as good as you’d get for frametime pacing from the RTX 3060 (watch our review), RTX 4060, or RX 6600 XT (watch our review).

The 6600 XT’s average framerate holds a 14% lead, with the 4060 at 8% ahead, breaking rank from a roughly tied average at 4K. The 7600 also climbs ahead, now matching the 6600 XT rather than the B580 AVG FPS as we saw at 4K. The 4060 Ti is 35% ahead of the B580 with its 100 FPS AVG.

Generationally, Intel improves over the Alchemist A750 by 7%, with a notable leap over the 62 FPS AVG of the A580.

Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty - 1440p

In Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty at 1440p, the B580 performs overall well. This is one of Intel’s strongest titles. 

At 1440p and with Ultra settings, without RT, the B580 lands at 53 FPS AVG in our in-game test within one of the cities. The B580 roughly matches the RTX 3070, although is lower in 0.1% lows and frametime consistency. The B580 leads the RTX 4060 in AVG FPS by 36%, the RX 7600 by a similarly large gulf, and the RTX 4060 Ti 8GB model by 12%. The 4060 Ti has stronger 0.1% lows, but not in a way which we think is worth the cost tradeoff.

Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty - 1080p

At 1080p, the B580 slips in the ranks below the 4060 Ti, which also carries a large advantage in 0.1% lows. 

The B580 technically leads the RTX 4060 in AVG FPS by 18%, but the 4060 pulls ahead in overall frametime consistency. The RX 7600 is in a similar boat.

Black Myth: Wukong - 1080p

Black Myth: Wukong is next. This is one of the few games where we use the built-in benchmark. It’s new to our test suite and it’s been pretty consistent. Dropping settings would obviously increase framerate, but we’re interested in this from a scaling standpoint.

At High settings, broadly speaking, the B580 still has a slight deficit in lows, but a far less noticeable one than some other games. It’s close enough to the RX 7600 and RTX 3060 that the experience would feel overall similar, although technically worse by measurement.

The RTX 4060 holds a significant lead in this test, up at 19% and 54 FPS AVG to the 46 FPS on the B580. Frametime consistency is also better. The 3060 Ti leads the 4060 and B580, with the 4060 Ti at 65 FPS AVG, or 42% ahead of the B580.

The B580 at least improved on the last generation, at 29% over the A750, and 38% over the A580. Intel is making big generational strides against itself here.

Black Myth: Wukong - 1440p

At 1440p, we’re bordering on synthetic test territory for the B580. But what matters most to us is the scaling, not the raw FPS.

At 35 FPS AVG, the B580 allows the 4060 a lead of 6.6%, down from 19% at 1080p. This is a huge swing in favor of the B580, which continues to scale more favorably at higher resolutions.

The 7600 falls below the B580 in average FPS and is roughly the same in lows. The B580 also leads the prior generation flagship from Intel, the A770, which was at 30 FPS AVG. We’re going to pick up the speed here now that patterns are establishing.

Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1440p

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is up next. For our CPU testing, we benchmark inside the city to create an NPC workload on the CPU. For GPU testing, we test outside of the city and in a GPU-heavy area with fields, water, and structures.

At 1440p, the B580 ran at 44 FPS AVG with good lows. The GPU does much better here than in some of the prior tests and ends up keeping pace with the RTX 4060. The 7600, 4060, and B580 are all functionally equivalent. The 3060 Ti (watch our review) benefits from its memory bandwidth and leads this grouping.

This is a much better positioning for the B580 than the prior games.

Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1080p

At 1080p, things shake-up to knock the B580 loose from its rough equivalence with the RX 7600 and RTX 4060. Now, the RTX 4060 holds a 13% lead, with the RX 7600 in an 11% lead. The B580 retains overall typical frametime pacing, which is good for Arc. It manages to hang in there, but it’s seen some losses as the resolution comes down.

Dying Light 2 - 1440p

Dying Light 2 is next. This one looks good for Intel Arc, including frametime consistency: The B580 runs at 63 FPS AVG, which has it ahead of the 4060 Ti, 4060, and 7600. It’s also ahead of all of these devices in 1% and 0.1% lows, in what’s a major victory for Intel considering its challenges in some other games.

The B580 ends up between the RTX 3070 and RX 6700 XT. The $400 7700 XT holds a lead in AVG FPS of 12%, despite being 60% more expensive. This is one of the stronger showings for Intel.

Dying Light 2 - 1080p

At 1080p, the B580 continues its good performance by outmatching the A770 and RTX 4060; however, it loses ground to the 4060 Ti that it had outperformed at 1440p. The 87 FPS AVG is well into playable territory and carries good lows. The die size is much smaller than an A770, so outperforming it is key here: Intel may be able to reduce some of its cost per card, which will help it compete long-term.

Intel B580 Ray Tracing Benchmarks

We’re moving on to ray tracing benchmarks. These are not comparable to the rasterized charts.

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Ray Tracing: Resident Evil 4 - 4K

Resident Evil 4 is up first. This is a relatively light workload for ray tracing and isn’t as distorted for one vendor or another as some other games.

This first chart is at 4K with Max RT, but with FSR set to quality for all devices. We have validated other upscaling solutions and found their performance to be roughly identical, so matching for just FSR agnostically allows us to control for image quality as well. Because we are using FSR, it is not native resolution. We don’t use FSR in our rasterized tests.

Here’s the 4K chart. The B580 ends up directly competing with the RTX 4060 Ti in the average framerate and in frametime consistency, with lows overall indicative of a comparable frame-to-frame interval to the 4060 Ti. It’s not far off from the RTX 3070. Intel’s B580 leads the RTX 4060 by 21%, at 50 FPS to 41 FPS AVG. The improvement over the A750 is similar. We need to run the 7600 back through this one still, but the 7700 XT and 6600 XT give an idea for AMD’s positioning.

Ray Tracing: Resident Evil 4 - 1440p

In this test, the Intel B580 runs at 75 FPS AVG with overall good lows. The 1% and 0.1% metrics are similar to what we see on the 3060 Ti, which outperforms the B580. Intel’s B580 manages to outperform the RTX 4060 by 6%, including proportional frametimes. It also outperforms the A770’s 71 FPS AVG, which was already relatively good for RT. AMD’s RX 7600 ran at 65 FPS AVG, giving the B580 nearly a 16% advantage while costing about the same.

The 4060 Ti’s 91 FPS result outdoes the B580’s 75 FPS by 21%, including scaling in the lows. The 7700 XT pushes further ahead, up to 106 FPS AVG. Both devices cost about 60% more than the B580, at around $400 for the 4060 Ti 8GB and 7700 XT alike.

Ray Tracing: Resident Evil 4 - 1080p

At 1080p and with the same FSR and RT settings, Resident Evil 4 positions the B580 now below the RTX 4060 -- though they’re functionally tied. It’s losing the advantage that we’ve now proven it typically has at higher resolutions. These two and the RX 7600 are closest in price, with the 7600 down at 85 FPS AVG and allowing the B580 a slight lead of 9%.

The 4060 Ti leads the B580 by 29%, with the 7700 XT 40% ahead of Battlemage.

Overall, Intel’s performance in this lighter RT test is competitive, especially for the price and in comparison to AMD. 

Ray Tracing: Dying Light 2 - 1080p

Dying Light 2 is a heavier RT workload and is tested with FSR Quality. 

At 1080p, the B580 ran at 65 FPS AVG and held consistent frametimes. It’s a little better than the A770 and similar in average to the 3060 Ti. The 4060 Ti leads the B580 with its 73 FPS AVG result, a gain of 12%. The B580 leads the 4060 by 13%. AMD falls behind in this test, with the 6700 XT now below the B580 and RTX 4060. The B580 ends up with nearly a 30% lead over the 6700 XT, which is a precarious spot for AMD. The lead over the RX 7600’s 45 FPS AVG is 44%.

Ray Tracing: Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1080p

In Dragon’s Dogma 2 with Max RT and no upscaling, the B580 ran at 44 FPS AVG with lows slightly lower than where they should be. The A770 leads the B580 in lows and ties in the average. 

AMD’s RX 7600 does better here than in Cyberpunk and Black Myth, up at 53 FPS AVG and outranking the B580 by 20%. The RTX 4060 also outdoes the B580 (and also outperforms the 7600’s frametime pacing), landing at 54 FPS AVG.

Battlemage is doing OK, but does not have the same advantage it has elsewhere.

Ray Tracing: Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1440p

At 1440p and RT with Dragon’s Dogma 2, the B580 ran at 36 FPS AVG and had dips in lows compared to the neighboring prior-generation A-series GPUs. The 7600 leads the card now by about 10%, reducing its lead from at 1080p. The RTX 4060 is in a similar position, but with better lows.

Ray Tracing: Cyberpunk - 1080p Medium

Cyberpunk with Medium RT settings is less brutal on AMD than Ultra, something we showed in our last round of reviews, but remains one of the heaviest RT loads and disproportionately hard on AMD devices. This is tested without any upscaling.

The B580 did overall well here: Its average framerate was competitive with the RTX 3060 Ti, despite lower 0.1% lows than it. The 4060 struggles in this one with frametime pacing and is erratic and unpredictable with these settings. The B580 is a much better experience, with the 3060 Ti and up better still. The 4060 Ti also struggles with frametime consistency, illustrated by the 0.1% lows that draw our attention to the problem. This appears to be an issue with memory bandwidth, especially as contrasted to the 3060 Ti, which likely compounds with the VRAM capacity.

In a massive loss for AMD, the B580 runs 62% ahead of its RX 7600 in average framerate while also maintaining superior lows and frametime pacing. AMD’s closest card is the RX 7700 XT, which is significantly more expensive. This is a repeat of what we saw with the Alchemist cards last time, where the A770 and A750 alike outperformed AMD’s 6700 XT and 7600.

We tried testing RT Ultra for Cyberpunk, but unfortunately, the system hard locked with the B580 card. This behavior did not occur on any of the other 18 plus devices we tested with these settings and appears to be related to Battlemage.

Ray Tracing: Black Myth Wukong - 1080p (Experimental)

Black Myth: Wukong is up next. 

This is an experimental chart, which means we are still researching the performance and vetting it. Our confidence is lower in data for experimental charts, which means they should be weighted less; however, we publish them when we feel we are ready to begin sharing, as this allows us to continue learning and advancing. We just like to be clear in our disclosures of data confidence.

This one is brutal on anything that isn’t NVIDIA. Intel also had a last-minute driver update for RT performance in this game.

At 1080p and with FSR set to quality, using high raster settings and medium RT settings, the B580 ran at 34 FPS AVG, with lows where they should be. Intel’s last-minute driver change did nothing to our results -- they were nearly identical, so we’re just showing one set here. The B580 ranks alongside the RX 7800 XT (watch our review), as AMD has serious difficulties with this game. Wukong is similar in performance to Cyberpunk in its performance characteristics on AMD, where even a 4060 outperforms a 7900 XTX.

For Intel, it at least is doing better comparatively than AMD, but NVIDIA has a stranglehold here.

Frametime Consistency Inspection

We’ll move to some quick zoomed-in shots of the frametime charts for some good and bad scenarios for the B580.

Frametime Consistency: Baldur’s Gate 3 (4K)

We’ll start with Baldur’s Gate 3 at 4K. This chart shows the frame-to-frame interval on the vertical axis and the frame on the horizontal axis.

Lower is better, more consistent is best. Although the B580 is at times lower than the RTX 4060, the card experiences occasional but massive excursions from the previous frame. We’re seeing some jumps upwards of 20ms, which is noticeable, but not necessarily game-breaking -- it depends on the frequency of them. In this case, you’d notice. Arc has improved substantially from Alchemist in this specific regard, but it’s clear that Intel still has some work to do in at least Dx11 with this game.

Frametime Consistency: Dying Light 2 (1440p)

Dying Light 2 rasterized is one of the better scenarios for Arc, so we’ll balance by also looking at that as well.

In this one, the B580 had better frametimes across the entire bench pass. It’s lower overall, but also doesn’t experience any major unexpected deviations. Unlike the Baldur’s Gate chart, the B580 GPU is exceptionally consistent in its frametime pacing here. The 4060 ends up the worse of the two tested devices.

Frametime Consistency: Phantom Liberty RT (1080p)

In this next one, NVIDIA and its RTX 4060 are a victim of its own creation. In Cyberpunk with RT Medium, the RTX 4060’s framebuffer and memory bandwidth cause it to struggle, resulting in frametime spikes that, in one case in this chart, exceed 120ms. That’s 1/10th a second that you’re looking at the same frame. This massive spike would result in a stutter in-game. These stutters were repeatable during play. There’s another large spike later in the run. They also happen frequently in our later runs. 

The B580 did not exhibit this behavior in this test and would be a better experience. Intel’s memory choices benefit the company here; bandwidth is one of them but capacity also contributes.

Frametime Consistency: Starfield

Starfield had some major consistency issues run-to-run for Intel so we’re actually only showing Intel here.

This shows 2 test passes from Starfield at 1080p for the B580. In this one, you’re seeing wildly inconsistent frame pacing with a total range from 13ms to 53ms. There’s no pattern to it and frame delivery is overall erratic, making the experience less consistent and allowing more microstutter behaviors to emerge. Dying Light 2 looked much better for Battlemage.

Frametime Consistency: FFXIV 1440p

Final Fantasy 14 is next. In this one, B580 did well overall but had slightly reduced 0.1% lows versus the 3060 Ti and 6700 XT; however, it did better than the RTX 4060 across the board. In the frametime chart for Final Fantasy, we see an incredibly flat line with only one major spike that would hardly be noticeable since it isn’t repeating.

Let’s move on to efficiency.

Intel B580 Power Consumption & Efficiency (Experimental)

Now, we’re getting into power consumption and power efficiency measurements. For this testing, we’re using a PMD2 hooked into a PCIe slot interposer and the PCIe cables. This PMD2 has been personally calibrated by Elmor, from ElmorLabs, for our work upon request and has been validated against other measurement devices, including current clamps. We are isolating for just GPU power, eliminating other test bench power draw. This allows us a clean and isolated feed of GPU behavior.

We haven’t yet tested our full lineup of GPUs as this is all brand new testing, so we only have some of the most relevant cards. You’ll have to check back as we add more.

Power Consumption: Idle

This chart is for idle power draw on Windows desktop and without any GPU tasks active.

The Intel B580 pulled about 35W when idle at desktop, which is a lot less than the Alchemist GPUs pulled (up at 46W, 45W, and 43W), but it’s still more than everything else. Intel still has an idle power consumption challenge to overcome.

The RX 6600 (watch our review), for example, pulled only 5W through the PCIe slot and PCIe cables when idle, which is impressive. The 6600 XT was similar, at 6.2W. The 4060 is a relevant comparison and far lower in power consumption idle, down at 11W to the B580’s 35W or so.

This is an area Intel will eventually need to improve, but no one will care about its idle power draw if the performance isn’t good enough to warrant a purchase first, so we’ll see if this improves subsequently.

Idle GPU power has been requested by our audience for years, so we’re happy to finally start delivering it with this first look.

Efficiency: Baldur’s Gate 3 (1440p)

The next chart is for Baldur’s Gate 3 efficiency at 1440p, looking at rasterization performance. This is measured in FPS/W, which can be thought of as frames per joule since it’s just frames per second per joules per second. Higher is more efficient here.

FPS/W is easier to understand for most people. In this test, the RTX 4060 Ti has the best FPS/W performance, up at 0.71. The 4060 Ti is about 37% more efficient, meaning its FPS/W score is 37% higher than the Intel B580. This is still a massive generational improvement for Intel, where its A580 previously was way down at 0.31. The B580 scores 68% higher in FPS/W than the A580 and A750. Its total power draw is about 141W here, the same as the 4060 Ti, and so the reason its FPS/W is lower is because its framerate is simply lower. 

The 4060 pulls 126W in this test and has a slightly higher framerate, benefiting on both sides of the equation. We don’t yet have the RX 7600 in this lineup.

Efficiency: FFXIV (1440p)

Now we’ll look at one of the B580’s best case scenarios to balance the last two.

This chart is for Final Fantasy 14 at 1440p, where it did well. The B580 ends up 4th on our list so far at 0.51 FPS/W, ahead of the 7800 XT and behind the 4060.

The RTX 4060 pulled 124W here, putting it at 0.58 FPS/W and almost 14% more efficient than the B580. That’s a good spot for the B580, despite being less efficient and pulling more power at 170W.

The 4060 Ti pulled just 129W, so it didn’t leverage its total power budget, and was 27% more efficient than the B580.

Against the last generation, the B580 is significantly more efficient than the RX 6600 XT, RX 6600, RTX 3060 Ti, and Intel’s own Arc cards. The jump over the A750 is huge, especially since the Titan model has a boosted power budget.

Efficiency: FFXIV (1080p)

At 1080p, the 4090 and 4060 Ti appear the same because the 4090 (watch our review) is completely CPU-bound. It can’t perform any better, but remains in a higher power draw state.

The B580 again ranks as less efficient than the 4060 and more efficient than the 7800 XT and below. The B580 pulled 161W here.

Efficiency: Black Myth Wukong (1080p)

In Black Myth: Wukong at 1080p and without ray tracing, the B580 scored 0.3 FPS/W and pulled 146W, which has it significantly behind the RTX 4060 at 0.4 FPS/W and 121W. The 4090 would rank higher if it could fully stretch its legs.

The B580 is about equal to the 7800 XT again.

Cyberpunk: Phantom Liberty (RT, 1080p)

In Phantom Liberty with Ray Tracing and at 1080p, the B580 manages to hold onto its 4th place positioning in our current limited lineup. The lead over the 7800 XT is now a massive 29%, thanks to AMD’s performance issues in this title. The 4060 maintains an advantage of 15% over the B580. What’s clear is that Intel has drastically improved on its A-series performance.

Intel B580 Conclusion

Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!

Intel Battlemage is way better than our experiences with Alchemist. The launch of the A380 and subsequent A750 and A770 cards was plagued with experience-ruining bugs that were unfixable in many cases. This time around, we ran into a couple driver issues, but the only one that completely prevented play was an issue with Cyberpunk and RT Ultra settings, where it’d hard crash. Everything else ran more or less without issue.

This review is long already, so we’ll keep it simple. Here are the key points:

  • We observed that the B580 scales well as resolution increases, especially at 4K and the games that aren’t heavy enough to eliminate it as an option. Unfortunately, the card isn’t so powerful that 4K is playable in a lot of these games, but the behavior was consistent with 1440p as well. 1080p saw a loss of advantage or sometimes a flip with the RTX 4060 or RX 7600.
  • Intel’s frametimes are overall much better and mostly avoid experience-ruining issues in almost all cases. The Battlemage drivers still have some frametime pacing problems in some games and tests and are not overall superior, but have improved enough that, in combination with a low enough price point at $250 and below, they could be overlooked depending on the games you play.
  • Also as a downside, Intel’s idle power consumption remains high. It has improved massively, but is higher than everyone else at idle for the most part.
  • Intel’s efficiency in actual gaming scenarios, at least when those games perform well for it, has improved massively and is competitive with the RX 7800 XT and RTX 4060 in some scenarios.

As the A750 went on massive fire sales previously, we’d sometimes recommend it with heavy caveating. The main one was that we never felt comfortable recommending it for the general mainstream audience as we feared users without troubleshooting experience (or even those who have it, but don’t have secondary GPUs) would find it frustrating when encountering games that simply don’t work. Starfield, for example, just didn’t work at launch on Arc. 

Battlemage has improved on this front. We feel much more comfortable recommending at large. However, we still have one major caveat, which is that this is still only the second true generation of Intel’s modern dGPUs. We fully anticipate that Battlemage will have issues given the thousands of games and millions of hardware and software combinations, and we can’t possibly vet them all. That’s why it’s important to check other reviews. We can only speak for our experiences: In the games we tested and with our software, we encountered only one game-breaking bug, and that was RT Ultra in Cyberpunk, which is likely not particularly playable anyway. It is a valid issue, though. We also had one system hard reset at some point.

Now, on NVIDIA and AMD, such issues would almost never happen at this point. On Intel, this is an improvement from dozens of problems with the Alchemist launch. The issues were so many that we published a bug report detailing over 30 major problems. 

The B580 poses considerable value as compared to the RTX 4060 and RX 7600. It is not always the best and trades with these cards, but is a serious competitor. You have all the numbers. We’d recommend looking through our results and determining if it’s a good fit for your games, but overall, Intel’s improvement is obvious.

The next big thing will be seeing what happens in January with Intel’s competitors.


Montech King 65 Pro Case Review & Benchmarks: Cable Management, Thermals, Noise

3 décembre 2024 à 21:17
Montech King 65 Pro Case Review & Benchmarks: Cable Management, Thermals, Noisejimmy_thang December 3, 2024

We review the Montech King 65 Pro’s build quality, value, design, thermals, and more

The Highlights

  • The Montech King 65 Pro shares tooling with the Montech King 95 Pro case before it
  • The King 65 Pro is not a great thermal performer
  • The actual core of the chassis is good overall
  • Original MSRP: $100
  • Release Date: October 14, 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

Today we’re reviewing the new $100 Montech King 65 Pro. The coolest feature of the case is its side-mount fan tray, which can be released with two screws and pivoted out for easy cable routing or fan and radiator installation. It’s well-designed so that the tray is loosely secured by the cable grommets, which use their chamfered edges to guide it into place in a way that almost feels like there’s a guide wheel.

This dual-chamber case comes with 3 pre-installed fans: 2x 140mm reverse blade ARGB side fans and 1x 120mm ARGB rear fan. Looking around the case, we can find remnants of the King 95. That’s because a lot of this case is the same, but cheaper.

Editor's note: This was originally published on October 14, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing

Mike Gaglione

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Camera

Tim Phetdara
Andrew Coleman

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


But for those of you who have used the King 95, a lot of this case will be familiar: It’s intended to be a cheaper variation of the theme. There are some paneling changes, like the top panel, but a lot of the interior is familiar. 

Because we never formally reviewed the King 95 as it was during our case benchmarking rework, we’ll treat this as the first look at both the 95 and 65 features and review it fully. Since there’s shared tooling, some of the discussion will apply to both.

Let’s get into the review.

Pricing & Alternatives

We’ll start with the competitors in this price range.

Currently, the King 95 Pro is $140 to $150, including its 6x ARGB fans. The non-Pro variant is the same case, but drops to 0 included fans and is currently around $110. At $100, the King 65 Pro swaps some panels but adds 3 fans back. 

Somewhat confusingly, we found Montech’s own King 95 on Newegg for $90 at the time of writing this. They’re calling this a “holiday sale” -- it’s October 10th as we write this and we have absolutely no idea what holiday that is for, maybe “Newegg Needs Money Day,” but the point is that $90 makes it cheaper than the brand new King 65 Pro and may lead to some product cannibalism. Adding 3 fans wouldn’t be that expensive.

In price and ignoring form factor, the King 65 Pro competes with the Lian Li Lancool 207, the $80 case we just reviewed. The Lancool case is a more traditional design, while this is a dual-chamber fishtank, so they have different looks. Lian Li’s Lancool is an excellent thermal performer with some cable management challenges.

The SilverStone 514X is another case around $100 that the King 65 competes with on price, but is totally different on style.

The Phanteks XT Pro Ultra is $80 and comes with 4x 140mm fans in a standard form factor case as well.

As for actual style competition, the Lian Li Vision is currently $130 to $140 and doesn’t include fans, but would match for the general design.

Montech King 95 & King 65 Differences

The King 65 Pro adds a bolted-on front plastic piece to square out the front/bottom of the case. This is in contrast to the curved design of the King 95

Aside from the glass, the top panel also features curved edges as compared to the King 65’s straighter-edge design. The King 65’s top and back side panel also features a more standard mesh ventilation as compared to the King 95’s Hyte-inspired sweeping design. The King 95’s ventilated side panel also features a built-in dust filter, whereas the King 95’s solution does not. 

There are also differences between the fan hubs of both cases. The King 65 features 6 total connections whereas the King 95 Pro has 10 total ports. 

Another difference includes the fact that there are rubber grommets within the King 95 Pro, which are absent from the King 65 Pro. 

Montech King 65 Pro Build Quality & Panels

Those are the key differences. Now we’ll get into build quality and panels of the King 65. A lot of this discussion will also apply to the King 95.

Overall, panel construction quality is good on the King 65, but there are some caveats.

At Computex, we noticed that the front panel was very slightly misaligned with the decorative plate for the I/O side. This is somewhat of a nitpick, but that’s because it’s rarely an issue. 

The cases that we got resolve this issue and have the two front panels level, so that was nice to see. 

The front decorative strip is actually just plastic with a brushed look to sort of fake an aluminum appearance, serving as a cheaper gimmick to emulate the O11D and 6500D (read our review) look.

As a downside, the top metal strip for the supporting backing of the glass front panel was bent up on our black King 65 Pro. We always include damage in our reviews, whether that’s quality control or shipping. This particular damage looks like something that happened at the factory, not in shipping. It could be easily pressed back down with a flat edge.

As a positive, the panel gap between the front and side panel is flush, which wasn’t the case with the show model we saw 5 months ago. Cheaper cases often have problems with panel alignment.

The side panels are secured with thumbscrews, which we always like to see just as a security feature when moving the computer around for cleaning and maintenance. The front panel pops out easily once the side panel is removed.

Like we saw on the Lancool 207, the King 65 uses a reinforced rectangular piece of steel to support the snaps to the frame.

The front corner of the top panel is also relatively strong, unlike the Tryx case, because Montech designed it properly. The Tryx case top panel was caving in not from shipping damage, but from design issues, and we want to make sure that plot doesn’t get twisted because it’s important. The King 65 is relatively stout, which helps reduce the top panel length to provide strength, and is also supported by a more significant anchor to the deeper secondary channel, meaning a lengthier attachment point to serve as a counter support on that front edge.

The top panel itself is of sturdy build and has butted-together steel around the edges to give clearance from the fan rails while adding structural rigidity, but lacks the mesh we saw in the King 95. 

The final side panel is a little floppy from lack of thicker supports, but has no functional downside. It’s also ventilated for air intake through the side. 

Removing that panel, there’s a cable management cover tray with 2x 2.5” SSD mounts in it. Two screws can be removed to hinge the door outward, giving access to the drive mounts and two additional fan mounts with rails in the door. And this is where we get into an area that Montech could improve.

Both sets of fan mounts have heavy obstructions. By accommodating both 120mm and 140mm sizes, Montech needs two sets of mounting points. Unfortunately, in the process of creating these, it has covered up to about 20mm per side of the fan blade, or 40mm total horizontally obstructed. This is a huge amount of intake area loss. Montech could still support two sets of rails, but at least cutting a hole right in the middle would be better -- or even running the rails the entire length of the fan so that there’s some room for air. This is an oversight that likewise extends to the King 95. The King 95 Pro did OK in most of our tests, but falls behind other cases with similar fan count. This is a large contributor to that.

Montech King 65 Pro Cable Management

For cable management, the King 65 continues the trend of including velcro cable ties that secure behind the motherboard tray, which itself is already deep enough to provide functionally limitless cable space. Although we’ve since built in the cases, we liked how the fans were pre-routed and arranged out of the box.

The power supply sits elevated atop a rubber-damped pad, providing clearance on all sides while hopefully absorbing vibration that could cause noise. Although the exterior of the hard drive cage has rubber dampers, the drive sleds themselves do not. If supporting 3.5” drives, we’d like to see rubber dampers at the contact points where the drive meets the plastic or metal. 

Access is through the rear for drive installation, which mostly makes things easier. They aren’t hot-swap cages with pre-wired backplanes or anything fancy like that, but the rear access does make things easy to get to.

As for radiator, GPU, and fan support, it’s the same as the King 95 Pro: Montech’s GPU support is up to 420mm long, so basically any video card, and radiator support is up to 280mm or 360mm top, 140 or 240mm side, and 175mm tall air coolers.

Montech King 65 Pro Thermal Benchmarks

Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!

CPU Thermals: Noise-Normalized

We’ll start with noise-normalized CPU thermals under a full torture workload.

Unfortunately for the King 65 Pro, it’s the new worst result on the charts. These fans just aren’t powerful enough to provide the cooling necessary, and likewise, extra noise created by paneling choices, such as the sharper angles and the obstructions, leads to a need to reduce speed to normalize for noise.

The King 65 Pro lands at 57.6 degrees over ambient for average P-core temperature, putting it behind even the Hyte Y60 (watch our review) in the baseline setup.

The Antec C8 runs about 3 degrees cooler, which is significant, although it carries a $50 premium. The same-priced Silverstone 514X (read our review) runs about 6 degrees cooler with its own stock fans. The Flux Pro (read our review) does well here, but costs $80 more than the King 65 Pro, so it’s not a fair comparison. We know, that’s hard to believe since they’re both pros.

The Lancool 207 is $20 cheaper than the King 65 Pro though and manages to completely dominate it on this chart. At 44.5 degrees, it’s not even close. The King 65 Pro is just not a great thermal performer.

The King 95 Pro with the glass front ran at 50 degrees over ambient, which is over a 7 degree reduction without even using mesh. That’s a lot of impact from the extra fans and panel changes.

GPU Thermals: Noise-Normalized

Here are the GPU thermals for the same noise-normalized test.

The King 65 Pro gets destroyed here. It is not only at the absolute bottom of the chart, but it’s several degrees worse than the previous worst: The FARA 515XR set the floor at 54 degrees over ambient previously, with the King 65 Pro at 57 degrees over ambient. For GPU testing, that’s a big swing. The GPU is not normally as sensitive to the case changes as the CPU in our tests.

The $150 Antec C8 (read our review) is an impressive 15 degrees better than the King 65 Pro. The $80 Lancool 207 is also about 15-16 degrees better than the $100 King 65 Pro.

Standardized Fans: CPU Thermals

The next test is where we pull all the included fans and swap them for 3 standardized fans. Some cases are worsened by this, as we’re removing more abundant or better fans; however, this is useful for evaluating changes to the chassis structure itself. 

As a perfect example: The King 95 and King 65 are suddenly exact equals when we swap to the same fans and positions. They’re within 0.4 degrees of each other for P-core average performance, which is impressive. That’s a testament to our new methodology and is great to see.

The Antec C8 with comparable side intake lands at 46 degrees, outperforming the King 65 and King 95 alike. Because we’ve normalized to the same fans and in the same positions, we can confidently state that the King 65 and King 95 have paneling that obstructs the fans enough to worsen performance. Montech could boost itself by changing its porosity and all the small obstructions to airflow that add up, like those earlier rails we discussed.

Standardized Fans: GPU Thermals

GPU thermals when using standardized fans are also within roughly 1-degree ranges between the King 95 and King 65. The curvature of the glass theoretically should help improve air access to the GPU, but this gets into areas where we’d need CFD to know for certain. Regardless, at about 1-degree difference, they’re functionally the same.

The Antec C8 with side intake again climbs ahead, up at 42 degrees for GPU temperature against 44.6 on the King 65.

CPU Thermals: Full Speed

Back to the included stock fans and at 100% fan speeds, the King 65 Pro landed at 37.8 dBA as tested in our hemi-anechoic chamber, aligning it most comparably with the Antec C8 ARGB, which was 37.11dBA. That’s the same noise level.

The C8 outperforms the King 65 even with both at full fan speed, at 49 degrees to 54 for the average P-core temperature. The cheaper FARA 514X is quieter than both, at an impressive 35 dBA and 47 degrees over ambient. The Lancool 207 sounds more like a vacuum cleaner at 41.6 dBA when running at full speeds, but pushes to 41.6 degrees over ambient.

VRM Thermals: Noise-Normalized

Noise-normalized VRM and RAM thermals position the King 65 Pro at 36 degrees for the VRM and 26 for the RAM. These results have it toward the bottom of the chart, though better than the Hyte Y60 with its stock configuration. Both the VRM and RAM thermals are completely acceptable, it’s just that it isn’t as competitive.

Montech King 65 Pro Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Thermally, the Montech King 65 Pro is just not impressive. It can’t overcome the limitation it has on its panel and case design. Its 3 moderate fans are just not sufficient for it to get anywhere impressive on our thermal charts and it’s at the bottom of some of those charts.

In terms of build quality, in some places, it’s pretty good. The actual core of the chassis is good overall. There’s a lot of space to work with the cabling. There’s also some cool features like the side-mount fan tray, which is also on the King 95 Pro. Overall, the build and panel quality are fine. It’s just that at $100, it has to be really competitive and one of the things it's competing against is the King 95 Pro without any included fans. 

This makes it hard to recommend the case in any one category. Overall, the King 65 Pro is okay. We don’t hate it, but against standard form factor cases like the Lancool 207 or even the FARA 514X, which we weren’t thrilled about but we thought was fine, those are better options at this price. They are also better thermal performers, though the King 65 Pro is certainly a lot easier to build in than the 207

In terms of other competition, the Antec C8 is similar in design to the King 65 Pro, but it’s wider and its non ARGB variant without fans is similarly priced.

Within $20 plus or minus of the King 65 Pro, the case kind of gets its ass kicked in either direction thermally.


Best PC Cases of 2024: $80 to $800 Airflow, Cable Management, & Thermal Leaders

27 novembre 2024 à 22:32
Best PC Cases of 2024: $80 to $800 Airflow, Cable Management, & Thermal Leadersjimmy_thang November 27, 2024

Our best cases round-up is back! We're looking at the best gaming PC cases for 2024, ranging from $80 to $800 and covering all aspects of custom PC building.

The Highlights

  • Best Overall Case 2024: Fractal North & North XL
  • Best Mechanical Design Case: HAVN HS 420
  • Best Sub-$100 Case: Lian Li Lancool 207
  • Best Mid-Range Case: Antec C8 ARGB
  • Best Noise-Normalized Case Thermals: Antec Flux Pro

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Intro

We’re looking at the best cases available right now. 

We broke back into case reviews this year and have added to our case collection. This round-up highlights the best cases we think are available in 2024 based on our thermal benchmarks, acoustic tests, build quality evaluation, and cable management testing.

This year was packed with excellent cases -- but of course, a few that were really problematic as well.

Editor's note: This was originally published on November 21, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Writing

Patrick Lathan

Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


Setting Expectations

Welcome back to the Best Of Round-Up series. These are our favorite pieces to run annually and help you quickly get back into PC components if you haven’t been paying attention, but also give us a reason to go back through all the cases we’ve tested recently and remember what was the best. 

These are meant to be more of a fly-over story in the round-up series to help simplify and highlight the key points. If you want the full in-depth reviews with all the nuance, check the links in the description below. We’ve linked each case review and have also provided all the usual affiliate links with them.

We already published Best CPUs and the same thing applies here: Sometimes, the best case or CPU in 2024 might be something that launched in a previous year. We look at the total market and what the best options are now, not just what launched this year. As a reminder as well, we took about a year off of case reviews in 2023, so we launched back into it heavy this year and we’re excited to be back to the Best Of series for something positive.

Let’s get into it.

Overview: Best PC Cases for 2024

CategoryCaseReview
Best Overall Case 2024Fractal North
on Amazon
on Newegg

Fractal North XL
on Amazon
on Newegg
Excellent Design: Fractal North Case Review & Benchmarks

Fractal North XL Case Review & Benchmarks: Wood Panels & Mesh
Best Mechanical DesignHAVN HS 420
on Amazon
A New Type of Computer Case | HAVN HS 420 Thermal Benchmarks & Review
Best Sub-$100 CaseLian Li Lancool 207
on Amazon
on Newegg
Lian Li Lancool 207 Airflow Case Review | Cable Management, Build Quality, & Benchmarks
Best Mid-Range CaseAntec C8 ARGB
on Amazon
on Newegg
Surprisingly Good: Antec C8 ARGB Case Review, Thermals, Cable Management, & Noise
Best Out-of-the-Box Case ThermalsLian Li Lancool 207
on Amazon
on Newegg

Antec Flux Pro
on Amazon
on Newegg
Lian Li Lancool 207 Airflow Case Review | Cable Management, Build Quality, & Benchmarks

Best Case of 2024 So Far: Antec Flux Pro Review & Benchmarks
Best Noise-Normalized Case ThermalsAntec Flux Pro
on Amazon
on Newegg
Best Case of 2024 So Far: Antec Flux Pro Review & Benchmarks
Most Innovative CaseMeshless AIOA Better Computer Fan - Sometimes: Cross-Flow Meshless AIO Case Benchmarks & Review
Biggest Disappointment CaseCorsair 6500 Series
on Amazon
on Newegg
Corsair Forgot How to Make a Case: 6500D Airflow & 6500X Review

Best Overall Case 2024: Fractal North & North XL

Fractal North: Original review | Newegg | Amazon

Fractal North XL: Original review | Newegg | Amazon

Awarding the best overall case is difficult this year, which is a good problem to have -- that means cases don’t suck. This category requires a strong offering on all fronts: Value, thermal performance, acoustic performance, aesthetics, build quality, ease-of-installation features, and cable management.

We’re giving it to the Fractal North & North XL. Although other cases are superior in some individual situations, like the Antec Flux Pro (by a slim margin) in thermals or the HAVN HS 420 in mechanical aspects, the North and North XL are masterful executions of a standard computer case.

This is bolstered by prices that have been lower in recent weeks, typically down around $125 to $140 for the North (watch our review).

The Fractal North was the first case to successfully kick-off the wooden trend at scale, with everyone else in the industry scrambling to follow. InWin gets credit for initially attempting this years ago, but it failed to find a way to bring it to market and execute. Fractal pulled it all together and cleaned up the idea.

The North comes with either a glass or mesh side panel, which includes options for additional side mounts to further boost cooling performance. Actually, in our recent tour of Wendell’s offices, you can see such a configuration for one of his machines.

Fractal’s fan support on the XL is also effectively whatever you want it to be: The company cleverly uses standard hole spacing for its rear ventilation (and even PCIe slot covers and top of the power supply shroud) so that you could mount a fan basically anywhere you want in the case. The cooling options are really opened up because of this. 

Ease-of-installation options are also great: Because the top panel so easily slides off to remove, and because Fractal doesn’t put a ton of other metal in the way, you can get clear access through the top of the case for builds. The extra width in the XL also makes larger radiators easier to work with up top, reducing board clearance issues.

The North XL (read our review) is what we prefer to the North, mostly for its increased size for easier building and for our style of build, but both are good takes on the theme. Visually, the wood look doesn’t look like the slapped-on Vinyl style we see in other cases. It looks more purposeful. Fractal also does great work mixing different tone wood coloring with different panel coloring, including matching the black case with gold accents and the white case with silver accents.

And finally, even in cooling performance, the North XL is routinely at the top of the charts for thermal benchmarks. It’s not the best -- that’ll go to two other cases this year -- but it’s regularly at the top, and that plus all the other features, plus the value, get the North cases the Best Overall award.

Best Mechanical Design: HAVN HS 420

Original review | Amazon

Runner-Up: SilverStone Alta D1

Original preview | Amazon

The next award is for the Best Mechanical Design, which we give to cases that may not have won in other categories, but truly innovated for the physical and mechanical elements of the case.

This year, it goes to newcomer HAVN and their HS 420. The HS 420 (read our review) exhibits a mastery of mechanical features.

The HS 420 doesn't include fans, it's not fully airflow-focused, and it isn't cheap at $200 for the horizontal GPU model. That makes it a tough fit for our price- and performance-focused award categories, but it needs to be recognized, because it's one of the most interesting and downright good cases that we've reviewed this year.

Mechanically, it’s excellent. The curved tempered glass panel is the most significant feature. The panel is installed by sliding it back and down into the case on plastic wheels, where it then comes to rest on the bottom edge of the chassis. It takes some getting used to, but it's a clever and secure way of getting the huge glass pane seated. It's also proven to be durable, surviving multiple build/unbuild cycles through the filming process without serious wear.

There was a lot of thought put into airflow, something we illustrated in animations. The HS 420 VGPU includes a curved glass deflector that's intended to direct incoming air around and into vertically-mounted GPUs. It was a clever idea and a fresh approach, which we appreciated, but it did not help performance in our test system. That’s also why we're specifically giving the award to the $200 base model, which is cheaper and sheds the hardware that didn’t do much. 

Even with the base model, though, HAVN planned for an unusual airflow pattern with intake at the bottom of the rear panel and exhaust at the top of the same panel, and included 120mm plates on each mount that are isolated with rubber vibration damping. In fact, every fan tray is padded with rubber, including the side mount that doubles as drive storage. The drive storage alone is pretty cool. It creates a spine-like structure that can be removed for more fans.

The case's construction is clever and precise in areas like the tightly-spaced storage bays at the front and the rounded edges of the PSU shroud and motherboard tray. The simple GPU support that ships with the non-VGPU case variant is one of the sturdiest we've seen, cast from solid metal and braced against the PSU shroud. The cable channels are not only labeled, but color-coded in what is an excellent feature, as it helps new builders understand where to route cables.

There are a ton of other small attention-to-detail elements, like the fact that HAVN matched the structural reinforcement for the panels to align with fan hubs, or the dead zone, rather than obstructing air intake. You can check our review for all the other details, including our full charts with 7 or 8 different fan configurations.

Before closing out this category, we want to give some recognition to SilverStone's ALTA D1. The ALTA D1 is an $800 halo product that's finally hit retail following our first encounter with it at Computex 2023 and again at Computex 2024. The price is ridiculous and very few people will buy the case, but the mechanical design hopefully inspires some more affordable cases: It has modular bays on rails everywhere, including 5.25" drive support, socketable radiators, a slide-out motherboard tray, SSI-EEB support, 11 expansion slots, large fan mounts, repositionable power supplies, and a true home server setup. It's beyond what we could recommend in a serious review if only for the price, but we may come up with a fun project for the ALTA D1 in the future and we respect its mechanical design.

Best Sub-$100 Case: Lian Li Lancool 207

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

We’ve had a category for years for the “Best Budget Case,” but the amount of quality cases in the $60 price point and under has really declined in recent years. Honestly, at or below $60 right now, we think used cases are typically a far better deal than something new at the same price.

So this category has become Best Sub-$100 case, which we’re giving to the Lian Li Lancool 207

There were a lot of cases to consider for this category: When we were deciding this year's winners, although there are a lot of sub-$100 cases, there just aren’t any that defeat the Lian Li Lancool 207 (read our review). In the current market, $80 is dirt cheap for a name-brand case: there are cheaper cases available from companies like SAMA and DIYPC, but we're confident that none of them come close to the Lancool 207's frequently chart-topping thermal performance.

When we reviewed the SilverStone 515XR, we were aware that SilverStone had pulled out all the stops to offer a case with four fans at $68, but the performance gap between it and the 207 is massive. There’s also differences in quality-of-life features. 

The same goes for the Phanteks XT Pro Ultra and the Montech XR. Both cases have been added to our charts recently. The Montech XR is supposed to be closer to $60, but has been out of stock lately and often more expensive when it is available.

The Lancool 207 is a solidly-built case with sturdy toolless panels, which is unusual at this price point. The most unusual aspect, though, is at the bottom of the case, where two 120mm intake fans are positioned directly underneath the GPU, while the PSU is mounted at the front with an extension cord. The shroud is ventilated on both sides as well as the rear in order to provide an airflow path for the bottom intake fans (although adding drives and cables to the case reduces that ventilation, but the ample intake through the rear counters this). In addition to the two bottom intake fans, 2x 140mm ARGB front intake fans are included with the case. 

They may not sound significant individually, but the fact that the 207 has a full suite of basic quality of life features like reusable (and bridgeless) expansion slot covers, rubber grommets for cable cutouts, a USB Type-C port, ARGB fans, built-in velcro straps, and toolless panels is impressive in combination with its price and thermal performance. It's rare to see that full combo in a case, especially one which is also a top thermal performer. The fact that the 207 also wins our objective, numbers-based Best Thermals category is also part of why it lands here.

We have two big issues with the 207: first, the toolless side panel won't stay on without meticulous cable management. There's no way around this, but sticking to flat cables and minimizing the number of cables used will help. There's also room to improve PSU cooling in the case, as most PSUs will be oriented fan-side-down with barely any clearance above the table surface. The cable management is the one to be aware of. You can watch our review for more on that.

Still, at $80, Lian Li is being brutally competitive.

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Best Mid-Range Case: Antec C8 ARGB

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

Next up is the award for the Best Mid-Range case. We’re looking for something that isn’t too wild or out there. We want relatively standard, but a good price-to-performance and overall build quality. We’re also looking for something a little bit better than the budget case. For this, we’re giving it to the Antec C8 ARGB.

Antec has had a strong year. It had 2 showings this year in our list we have today, but it was the Antec C8 that first signaled to us that the company was worth paying attention to again after a decade of fading into irrelevance. 

MSRP is $150 for the ARGB variant with fans included, but it's been long enough since the case's June launch that we're beginning to see discounts. The fan-less variant is regularly available with promo codes around $100. 

This mid-range award category gives us some room to consider quality of life and aesthetic features, not just raw performance-per-dollar, and the C8 is well-balanced in those categories.

The C8's dual chamber layout isn’t new, but Antec impressed us with the level of care that it put into details like molding text into the fan frames, color-matching all the components in the white SKU, and the accessory kit. Small touches, even ones that aren't functional, add up to create a product that feels worth the price. The C8's appearance reminds us of the clean designs that made Corsair's 4000D Airflow (and 5000D, and 7000D, et cetera) so appealing, but we much prefer Antec's case to the directly comparable Corsair 6500D Airflow.

Functionally, the usual benefits of dual-chamber design apply: there's plenty of space to work with in both chambers, including storage space for cables and drives. Dual chamber cases frequently have cable channels so deep that it's difficult to reach tie points at the bottom and effectively bundle cables, but the C8's removable "air duct partition" solves that problem.

The centerpiece of the C8 ARGB (read our review) is the bottom fan mount, containing two unusual 160mm x 35mm reverse-blade intake fans (with an additional conventional 140mm exhaust fan at the rear of the case). These two 160mm fans are placed over a completely open vent, meaning that the removable bottom filter is the only obstruction to incoming air. Antec was aware enough to not obstruct this intake path, unlike many other companies. 

This makes GPU cooling in the C8 ARGB excellent, although CPU cooling with our test setup was predictably lackluster due to the lack of front or side intake.

We prefer the C8 ARGB to the fanless base model, but the less expensive SKU may make more sense for liquid-cooled builds since the ARGB's 160mm stock fans won't match any normal radiator. The case can fit up to 3x 360mm radiators simultaneously, most easily in the side and bottom slots. For air cooled builds, the $20 upcharge for the ARGB variant with the extra fans is worth it. Many of the dual-chamber cases we've reviewed have followed in the footsteps of the O11 Dynamic by not including any stock fans, so having a choice is a welcome change.

Best Out-of-the-Box Case Thermals (Lian Li Lancool 207, Antec Flux Pro)

Lian Li Lancool 207 original review | Newegg | Amazon

Antec Flux Pro original review | Newegg | Amazon

Our next two awards are for thermals. The next one is for Best Noise-Normalized Thermals, while this one is for Best Out-of-the-Box Thermals. The difference is that noise-normalized is focused on one category, whereas Best Thermals looks for the best performer in all tests we ran and at all fan speeds.

The raw all-fans-maxed stock performance is a tie between the Lian Li Lancool 207, represented in the sub $100 category, and Antec Flux Pro, which is represented in the next category. These cases have similar layouts, each with front intake fans behind a mesh panel and bottom intake fans mounted on top of a ventilated PSU shroud. Our test bench hardware uses air cooling with a flow-through GPU cooler and a CPU tower cooler, which we've chosen to be as broadly representative as possible and as controllable as possible. This hardware benefits from simple, direct airflow: cool air from the front for the CPU, cool air from the bottom for the GPU. These two cases are the ideal realization of that airflow pattern.

The Flux Pro and Lancool 207 both averaged 38 degrees Celsius above ambient all-core and 42 degrees on just the P-cores. Fractal's Torrent and North XL are both within one degree of this result, but the Flux Pro (read our review) and 207 pull slightly ahead in other categories.

Moving to GPU thermals, both the Flux Pro and the Lancool 207 averaged exactly 38.2 degrees above ambient, although the 207's memory temperature averaged slightly better at 41 degrees versus 43, while the Flux Pro's hotspot temperature was a little lower. The Flux Pro's stock configuration is set up to mount the PSU rotated 90 degrees in Antec's "iShift" mount, but we found that mounting the PSU in a more typical orientation with the plug at the rear of the case slightly lowered overall GPU temperatures for a best-case 37 degree delta above ambient.

The 207, on the other hand, logged our best temperatures so far from the VRM and RAM sensors at 21 and 17 degrees above ambient respectively. These two cases are extremely close in performance, and we can't declare just one winner between the two of them.

Best Noise-Normalized Case Thermals: Antec Flux Pro

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

The next award is for Best Noise-Normalized Thermals. This is a pure performance-driven category, but it combines 2 metrics, which is acoustics and thermals. Fortunately, its winner is also just a good standard case to build in: The Antec Flux Pro.

Noise-normalized thermal tests are the most important performance benchmarks we run on cases. With the current iteration of our bench, we place the case on a table in our hemi-anechoic chamber with a mic pointed directly at the center of the front panel from one meter away. Then, we lower the speed of the case's stock fans in tandem until we hit our chosen threshold of 27 dBA SPL. This allows us to level the playing field so that the cases with the loudest fans don't automatically land at the top of every single chart by brute force. It creates a control.

The Flux Pro's front panel doesn't block much noise, but it's so well-ventilated that the three 140mm front intake fans don't need to work hard and don’t generate much noise to begin with. There isn’t much resistance and so they can spin slower, while the 2x 120mm shroud-top fans assist GPU cooling. The Flux Pro's PSU shroud is open on all sides, including the bottom, which maximizes airflow without directing significantly more noise towards our mic.

CPU thermals are tied at the top of the chart with the Lancool 207 at 41 degrees Celsius above ambient all-core and 45 degrees on just the P-cores. Some of our other high-performing cases like the North XL and Torrent come close, and the Lian Li Lancool 216 (watch our review) is tied in this one, but the Flux Pro is the best overall when taking all results into account. 

In the noise-normalized GPU thermal test, it outperforms the Lancool 207 and ties the Torrent (watch our review) for GPU die temperature. 

In VRM and DDR5 memory thermals, the Flux Pro is the chart leader by a technicality, but again is functionally tied with the 207. Both the Flux Pro and 207 offer excellent cooling at the noise levels, but the Flux Pro technically takes more lead spots than the 207. But the 207 is well-represented already.

We also know from our full speed results that it's possible that the Flux Pro could perform even better with its PSU mounted in the typical orientation rather than the stock rotated iShift mount.

The Flux Pro was an excellent return to form for Antec and offers a standard layout case for strong fundamentals. It is deserving of the Noise-Normalized victory while still offering the basics and foundation required for a good standard PC build in a non dual chamber case.

Most Innovative Case: Meshless AIO

Original review 

Honorable Mention: InWin Dubili

Newegg | Amazon

Our Most Innovative Case award goes to the case that has the newest and most different design, even if it doesn't work perfectly, because innovation pushes this industry forward. This goes to the Meshless AIO Mini-ITX case.

Despite its generic, boxy exterior, the Meshless AIO (read our review) is one of the most innovative cases we've ever reviewed.

The Meshless AIO (now apparently listed with a formal launch name as the “MD280”) is built around a cylindrical crossflow fan, like a smaller version of the fan in a mini-split wall unit. We found the case design curious enough that we built this 3D animation to help explain and educate on how these work. The basics are that the crossflow fan shoots hot air out at the upper edge of the side panel, and theoretically pulls cool air in everywhere else: towards the GPU fans from the side panel, through the radiator, and over the motherboard and PSU from a tiny strip of ventilation along the bottom edge of the case. In practice, we found that the GPU was better cooled by taping a couple of normal 120mm case fans to the top of the case, but these had other downsides in other tests. 

Thermal performance was at least adequate, and considering there was a single fan handling everything, overall impressive for what was done on a single fan that you might not normally find in a PC case. We were concerned about the PSU's lack of direct access to cool air, but otherwise, everything was getting fed air.

There are some other creative aspects to the MD280’s construction outside of the fan: the main portion of the case is a single piece of extruded aluminum, and other elements like the fan, radiator, glass side panel, and handle slide into the open ends. This is an excellent and compact design that works well. Another cool feature is the lever that’s accessible from the rear of the case, working to slide the PCIe riser cable up and down. It presses the slot into place to improve accessibility. It's an ambitious and creative project, especially since Meshless Design informed us that it's an independent outfit driven by one man: Hank Lin. This is the work of an engineer who turned an idea into an actual product with overall good execution.

We need to issue a buyer beware warning here: it looks like the Meshless AIO's price has been increased to at least $450, a big jump from what we were expecting, and we have no way of vouching for the company's ability to deliver on pre-orders. Unfortunately, that price kills the case for us, as there are simply too many other good competitors in ITX at half the price. 

But it still gets an innovation award.

We have an Honorable Mention for this category as well: InWin’s Dubili ATX case. Dubili is an anagram of iBuild, an abbreviation for InWin's DIY "iBuild iShare" brand, as well as an abbreviation of "Do Believe." The instruction manual comes in the form of a dedicated single-purpose app with animated 3D renders, which is absolutely required if you order the flat-packed build-it-yourself DIY edition. We like the Dubili for its unique look, high-quality build and materials, and the modularity of the paneling. That it flat packs is also a cool aspect to the case, creating a fuller DIY experience. The color scheme is also different: A sharp silver-and-orange or a Noctua-style cream-and-brown with gold screws. The case doesn’t win over the Meshless AIO, but we like it enough that it deserves a mention.

Grab a GN15 All-Over Print Component Mouse Mat for a high-quality mousing surface that'll fit your keyboard & mouse. These mouse mats use a high-quality yellow rubber underside, a blue stitched border for fray resistance, and are covered in PC parts. This is the best way to support our work and keeps us ad-free to support consumer-first reviews!

Biggest Disappointment Case: Corsair 6500 Series

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

The Biggest Disappointment is up next. There are a lot of options to consider for this category: Between the GameMax HYPE (read our review), the Tryx LUCA L70, the Corsair 6500, and more. We had our work cut out for us.

The award goes to Corsair for the 6500 series of cases. Although Tryx’s case was a mess, it ultimately doesn’t have the same expectations attached to it as Corsair. To be a disappointment requires some level of expectation.

Corsair wins the award handily: Broadly speaking, Corsair has continued to disappoint ever since it took on huge investment. Like the assets of its corporate overlords, its disappointments are diversified: They bought Origin, which sold us a $6,600 computer that had the CPU underclocked by 1GHz out of the box; they made the A500 air cooler, which had heatpipes so unlevel they sheared our pressure paper. But the company also shipped some excellent products in recent years, and those came from its case division.

The Corsair 4000D (watch our review) was commonly $80 and one of the best sub-$100 cases available for a while. The 5000D (watch our review) was an OK follow-up to that, scaling-up the useful features to a larger size. Corsair was finally doing well with cases again, following a long drought of basically nothing.

But then it launched the 6500 (read our review) series this year, attempting to jump onto a hype train that had already left the station, and doing so with substandard build quality. The Corsair 6500D and 6500X were $200 without fans, both featuring superbly bendy panels without any reinforcement -- which we found totally unacceptable for a $200 so-called “Premium” case. There were lots of plastics, misaligned panels, and build quality issues. 

The 6500D had a number of slapped-on features that didn’t work together. They tried to accommodate back-connect motherboards, but doing so required punching what seems like a completely random hole into a drive cage, which was then entirely left out of the original manual. If you used one of Corsair’s own SHIFT power supplies, you’d have to remove the drive cages completely and move to only NVMe drives. We found build quality issues, design oversight, and a high price to be not only disqualifying from any considerations on our lists, but also deserving of the Biggest Disappointment after falling from the grace of the 4000D.

Corsair is a big company and has the resources to fix this, but it’s a matter of whether they choose to.

Since our critical review, Corsair has dropped the price of the 6500D closer to $150. It’s still worse than an Antec C8 ARGB, which often costs the same or less.


Best CPUs of 2024 (Intel vs. AMD): Gaming, Production, Budget, & Efficiency

22 novembre 2024 à 19:22
Best CPUs of 2024 (Intel vs. AMD): Gaming, Production, Budget, & Efficiencyjimmy_thang November 22, 2024

The best CPUs in 2024 for gaming, overall value, upgrade potential, and more.

The Highlights

  • Best Overall CPU: AMD R7 9800X3D
  • Most Balanced CPU: AMD R9 7950X
  • Best Upgrade CPU: AMD R7 5700X3D

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

We’re looking at the best CPUs of 2024, following what are probably the last CPU launches for the year. 

We’ve benchmarked most of the major CPUs out right now and have a huge lineup for you today, but there’s a remaining, weird factor from last year: And that’s the fact that prior generation parts are sometimes the best options. It wasn’t always the case that 3 generations of parts existed new-in-box from both vendors. They’d typically cleared some of those out by now, but with AMD and Intel alike, there are actually good, older parts available in some categories. They’re everywhere.

Editor's note: This was originally published on November 16, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


We’re going over the Best Overall, Best Gaming -- which is one of the easiest categories to judge, Most Balanced for a mix of workstation and gaming performance with price in consideration, best upgrade, most efficient, and more.

Setting Expectations

Welcome back to the annual Best Of round-up series. We run these at the end of every year to get people back up to speed efficiently. A lot of you only check-in on PC part performance every few years for a new build, so this article will serve as a quick-start point for you to figure out which CPUs to pay the most attention to in your research. It also helps us get back up to speed on our own test data. As you find CPUs you’re interested in from this article, you can check out the in-depth reviews linked below for each of those components. That’ll get you everything you need to make a decision.

As usual, these round-ups don’t go as charts-heavy as our usual reviews. We’ll scatter them to support the points, but the goal is to provide a quick-and-easy recap. 

Let’s get into it.

Overview: Best CPUs for 2024

CategoryCPUReview
Best Overall CPU 2024AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
on Newegg
RIP Intel: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 7800X3D, 285K, 14900K, & More
Most Balanced CPU 2024R9 7950Xon Amazon
on Newegg

Runner up: i9-14900K
on Newegg
on Amazon
95°C is Now Normal: AMD Ryzen 9 7950X CPU Review & Benchmarks
Intel's 300W Core i9-14900K: CPU Review, Benchmarks, Gaming, & Power
Best Gaming CPU 2024AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
on Newegg
RIP Intel: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 7800X3D, 285K, 14900K, & More
Best Upgrade Value CPU 2024AMD R7 5700X3D
on Newegg
on Amazon

Runner-Up: Intel i7-14700K
on Newegg
on Amazon
New AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 5800X3D & More
Intel is Desperate: i7-14700K CPU Review, Benchmarks, Gaming, & Power
Most Efficient CPU 2024AMD R5 7600X3DAMD's Silent Launch: Ryzen 5 7600X3D CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 7800X3D, 5700X3D, 9800X3D
Best Mid-Range GPUi7-12700KF
on Newegg
on Amazon
Intel Core i7-12700K & 12700KF CPU Review, Benchmarks, & Efficiency vs. AMD Ryzen
Best High-End Desktop CPU 2024Threadripper 7970X
on Amazon
Crazy Efficient: AMD Threadripper 7980X & 7970X CPU Review & Benchmarks
Best Gaming CPU Under $100 in 2024R5 5600on Newegg
on Amazon

i3-13100F
on Newegg
on Amazon

i3-12100F
on Newegg
on Amazon
AMD Ryzen 5 5600 vs. i5-12400 & 5600X CPU Review & Benchmarks
Budget CPU Battle Royale: Intel i3-13100F CPU Review & Benchmarks
Budget King: $130 Intel Core i3-12100F CPU Review & Benchmarks
Biggest Disappointment CPUs 2024Intel InstabilityIntel's Biggest Failure in Years: Confirmed Oxidation & Excessive Voltage

Best Overall CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

Original review | Newegg

The first award category is for the Best Overall CPU for 2024. This one goes to the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D CPU, which also takes our Best Gaming CPU category later. We’ll save the gaming discussion for this CPU for that category in a little bit.

The 9800X3D (read our review) gets Best Overall for a few other key reasons: First, its $480 price makes it a better buy than several of the other high-end CPUs that have come out recently, such as the Intel 285K at $630 launch pricing. 

Secondly, the 9800X3D manages chart-topping gaming performance -- which we’ll save for discussion in our Best Gaming category -- while also managing overall acceptable production and workstation application performance. It’s not the best in these workloads, but it’s still capable. 

In Blender, the 9800X3D doesn’t benefit from its extra cache, but still manages to at least outperform the lower power budget Zen 5 components that are 8 cores and fewer, like the 9700X

In Photoshop, the 9800X3D ended up as our best performer. Photoshop likes Zen 5 in general and benefits from its architectural changes, and that really shows on the 9800X3D.

The 9800X3D is also an excellent overclocker and is fully unlocked, something that wasn’t true for the prior X3D parts. It’s such a good OC part that we even took it to stream to use liquid nitrogen to overclock it at -140 degrees Celsius, yielding some ridiculous performance scaling in real games that we might not have expected.

AMD moved the cache die closer to the substrate, with the core complex getting the cores right against the inside of the integrated heat spreader for this generation. This has helped improve the thermal situation, which is what gives AMD more clock headroom. AMD designed Zen 5 ground-up for X3D this time. It’s also a single CCD part, which keeps things as simple as possible to set up. 

We already know the 9800X3D is king in gaming, but it’s all these other reasons that make it the Best Overall CPU for 2024. We can highly recommend this one for new, high-end gaming builds especially, but it’s still an overall competent performer in workstation.

Most Balanced CPU: i9-14900K & R9 7950X

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

The next award is for the Most Balanced CPU, which is a category we’ve used for years to ensure credit is given to CPUs that perform well both in workstation or production applications and in gaming. This weighs all aspects of GN reviews, so it considers price, gaming performance, and production performance. 

We’re giving this to the AMD R9 7950X and secondarily to the Intel i9-14900K as a runner-up, now that its price has dropped. There are two reasons that it shares the category with the 7950X: First, Intel’s poor handling of its instability issues that has caused us to question the company’s successful resolution of all its problems; second: Intel’s efficiency is through the floor and power is through the roof.

Currently, the 7950X (watch our review) has fallen to $480 and under, with the 14900K now at $440. These CPUs both land on this list for their impressive workstation and production application performance, balancing good-enough gaming with high throughput performance in use cases like file compression and decompression, rendering or code compile, and Adobe applications like Premiere for video editing.

The 285K had some impressive results in production, but it just has so many other faults and its price is so high that it doesn’t get a place here. 

The 9800X3D is a great CPU, but its limited core count is a significant disadvantage in these non-gaming tests we run. 

The 7950X, particularly with ECO Mode enabled, has some of the best efficiency we’ve seen in our CPU efficiency charts.

The Threadripper parts can outperform it due to their incredible performance, but for a balance of price and performance, the 7950X remains strong. The 9950X (read our review) also does well in these same categories, but is significantly more expensive right now.

The 14900K (watch our review) doesn’t do well in efficiency (actually, it’s one of the least efficient), but its gaming performance is a little higher in most places compared to the 7950X and it trades places with the 7950X in some of our production tests. With the new lower price, it’s worth a second look. It’s just that the used market for these CPUs has been turned into a minefield with the stability issue parts potentially getting dumped secondhand. 

But ultimately, the 7950X has the advantage of being on a platform that will live for many more years. You may one day be looking at your own Best Upgrade CPU in our 2027 or 2028 round-up for AM5, and that’s the advantage AMD holds here.

Best Gaming CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

Original review | Newegg

Next up is the award for Best Gaming CPU. This one is extremely simple: We’re strictly looking for the best possible gaming performance and ignoring all other factors, including cost. This is a simple numbers-based category for framerate.

Fortunately, the best gaming CPUs these days are often cheaper than their non-gaming flagship counterparts. The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D at $480 gets this one with a clean sweep of the gaming charts. It isn’t even close in some situations, surpassing even last year’s winner, the 7800X3D, by sometimes large margins.

Let’s go by the numbers for this numbers-based award:

From our 7600X3D review, you can see how AMD has completely taken over the gaming charts.

The 9800X3D has an incredible lead in Baldur’s Gate 3, up at 160 FPS AVG to the 7800X3D’s 126 FPS AVG. We spent some time in our 9800X3D review explaining and exploring this one, as a 26.9% uplift was uncharacteristic. Ultimately, it replicated and we had data to support the finding. 

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is a 2024 title that’s extremely heavy on the CPU. This one had another break-out success, where the 9800X3D doesn’t even take a second to identify with how it breaks away from the rest of the stack. The CPU holds a 16% lead over the 7800X3D, which was already the best gaming part before that. Intel isn’t even close here.

F1 24 also has the 9800X3D advantaged. Even though it’s becoming limited by other components, it still holds a lead. 

Dawntrail is another like this: Gains are lower, but ever-present.

Starfield posted an impressive uplift for the 9800X3D as well, jumping to 169 FPS AVG from 145 FPS AVG on the 7800X3D, which was already a good result.

Frametime pacing is overall strong with the 9800X3D. There are some categories where its 1% and 0.1% lows improve disproportionately from the average, which is another great result.

Overall, the 9800X3D easily takes our Best Gaming CPU of the Year award for 2024, following up the 7800X3D before it.

Best Upgrade Value CPU: AMD R7 5700X3D

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

Buy a GN 4-Pack of PC-themed 3D Coasters! These high-quality, durable, flexible coasters ship in a pack of 4, each with a fully custom design made by GN's team. You'll get a motherboard-themed coaster with debug display & reset buttons, a SATA SSD with to-scale connectors, RAM sticks, and a GN logo. These fund our web work! Buy here.
Runner-Up: Intel i7-14700K

The next award is for the Best Upgrade CPU, a category we added 2 years ago. This is the best CPU that can drop into a prior generation of motherboards. In-socket upgrades are great for consumers, reduce wasteful spending on more boards and RAM but also reduce e-waste, and keep builds more affordable. 

This year, the AMD R7 5700X3D easily secures the award. The preceding 5800X3D (watch our review) got Best Upgrade last year, but has since largely disappeared as a new-in-box purchase and its price has gone up. The 5700X3D has taken its place, commonly available between a shockingly low $180 or a more typical $230.

The 5700X3D (read our review) is able to achieve most of the performance of the 5800X3D CPU when looking at our gaming charts. Typically, it’s within 10 percentage points, often fewer. The 5800X3D benefits from a higher frequency though, so there are some situations where you’ll see the 5700X3D dip down the charts. 

One example is the Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail benchmark, where our 5700X3D ran at a framerate that gave the 5800X3D an advantage of 11%. This is one of the highest deltas we saw in gaming between the 2 parts. The 5600X3D (read our review) even outperforms the 5700X3D in Final Fantasy, which sometimes confuses people. The 5600X3D may have fewer cores, but its frequency is 300MHz higher. Both are 105W TDP parts, but reducing core count means more power budget available for the clock. Generally speaking, the 5700X3D is the better performer between the 2.

In Baldur’s Gate 3, we saw the 5700X3D just behind the 7600X3D and about 10 FPS behind the 5800X3D. That’s an incredible rank for a part around $230, especially considering it’s outperforming a $630 285K (read our review) or $440 14900K (depending on when you read this, as that price keeps changing).

Broadly speaking, the 5700X3D’s price is wild, and the fact that AM4 boards exist in high quantities on the used market also makes it a good consideration for a used build.

The CPU can socket into AM4 motherboards, keeping cost down. If you already have an AM4 board from an old Ryzen build, it’s likely that a BIOS update will allow it to support the 5700X3D. Some older boards, especially from the first gen of Ryzen, are spotty on their support, so check the motherboard CPU support list to be sure.

We’re going to give a runner-up mention to the i7-14700K (read our review), which is about $350 these days. If you’re on an Intel Alder Lake 12600K (watch our review) or something, this would possibly make sense to upgrade to.

Most Efficient CPU: AMD R5 7600X3D

Original review

This is a short one: This award is for the Most Efficient CPU we’ve tested this year, and it goes to AMD’s somewhat obscure Ryzen 5 7600X3D (read our review). This part is sold in Micro Centers and, from what our European viewers have told us, sparingly in some European retailers. It’s not widely available, but when it is, it seems to be around $300.

In gaming workloads, the 7600X3D had impressively efficient results. Its power consumption was just 43W in our Baldur’s Gate 3 test, which allowed it to run at 2.7 FPS/W and outrank even the 9800X3D and 7800X3D in efficiency (both of which were impressive already).

In Dawntrail, we saw chart-breaking results that required us to adjust our chart axis. The 7600X3D outdid everyone for efficiency.

This CPU is somewhat rare, but its combination of lower TDP and X3D on Zen 4 is what enables this performance. Definitely an impressively efficient part and we want to encourage more CPUs like this. It’s too bad about the limited supply: If it were more widely available, we might have selected it for our best mid-range CPU as well. Speaking of, that category is next.

Best Mid-Range CPU: i7-12700KF

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

The next award is for the Best Mid-Range CPU. This lineup is lacking in $150 to $200 parts so far.

Considerations for this category would include: AMD’s R5 7600 non-X (watch our review) at $198 and benefitting from a modern AM5 platform; Intel’s i5-14400F or 13400F (neither of which make sense at their prices); and Intel’s i7-12700KF at $190. We’re giving this award to the Intel i7-12700KF. It feels weird since it’s from 2021 -- but the modern market means prior generation parts are persisting longer than typical.

Above $200 and with a gaming-only build, the 5700X3D might make more sense. But the 12700KF (watch our review) gives a great balance of workstation performance and gaming performance -- and it has a big benefit of not being on Intel’s plagued architectures.

In gaming, the 12700KF typically lands alongside the Intel 245K (currently $320) or AMD 5700X3D, 5600X, or 7700X and 9700X (read our review). The 5700X3D is more gaming-focused and tends to be a little more expensive, the 7700X (watch our review) is frequently more expensive, and the 9700X is $320 to $350.

In production, the 12700KF is similar to an R7 7700X or 9700X in many cases, outperforms most of the X3D parts thanks to its core count, and equates Intel’s 14600K (watch our review) or 245K. The 245K (read our review) does well in our production tests when compared to the 12700KF, despite its shortcomings overall.

It’s weird to put a CPU this old on the list, but AMD and Intel really haven’t had a lot of activity below $200 for a few years.

Best High-End Desktop CPU: Threadripper 7970X

Original review | Amazon

We’ll keep this one short. This is for Best High-End Desktop CPU. For the second year in a row, mostly because there aren’t any replacements, this is going to AMD’s Threadripper 7970X.

We like the 7980X, but its super high core count is more limited in use case. If you need 64 cores, you probably know you need 64 cores.

We’ve found the 7970X, which is the 32-core part, to be an excellent balance in production workloads that we use in our office. The 7970X does great with Adobe Premiere, has a ton of I/O capabilities with extra PCIe lanes that open up more storage options for true workstation-class computers, and along with other Threadripper parts, has some of the best efficiency results we’ve presented. 

It also performed exceptionally well in some of our SpecWorkstation benchmarks previously, to the point that a 7950X wasn’t even close in some comparisons. 

But for now, we’d advise waiting on Threadripper. It sounds like the beginning of next year will be busy for everyone, and current rumors about the 9950X3D may be reason to pay attention there as well.

Best Gaming CPU Under $100: R5 5600, i3-13100F, and i3-12100F

Original review | Newegg | Amazon

Next up is the best gaming CPU Under $100. This one is self-explanatory.

This goes to a split because the price is variable: The R5 5600, and the i3-13100F or i3-12100F all get attention.

Once again, multiple years running, the Intel i3-12100F ends up on this list - but unlike last year, the i3-13100F has also fallen below $100. The R5 5600 non-X also ends up on this list, with all 3 CPUs taking this category. Out of these three CPUs, the AMD R5 5600 (watch our review) is the best overall balance and performer in most categories. The only reason to exclude it in favor of the i3s is if it’s over $100 when you check this -- but right now, there are OEM CPU-only listings for $99.99, which technically qualifies for the list. Value goes down at its other common mark of $120 and it falls off the list at that point.

The 12100F (watch our review) is $77, which would be crazy if it weren’t 2 years old. The i3-13100F (watch our review) is $80. Neither of these F-SKUs have IGPs, which is why they’re cheap.

When we looked at the i3-13100F last year, we found that the 13100F frequently outperformed the R5 5500 by a significant percentage. The 5500, in our opinions, is not good enough to consider. It’s slightly more expensive than the 13100F but worse, and both are on dead platforms.

For gaming, looking at our data from last year when we had all 3 of these CPUs on the charts, the R5 5600 regularly outperformed the 13100F and 12100F. In fact, it was even over the 12400 in some tests. If you can find it under $100, the 5600 makes a lot of sense for this category. Even a few bucks over that is not bad.

But where the i3-12100F and 13100F are $20+ cheaper and where the strictest possible budgets exist, they are still capable performers. We recently reran the 12100F and found that it was capable in every game we tested, with one exception of extremely spotty frametimes in our Baldur’s Gate 3 test.

It’s impressive how much these 3 CPUs are capable of. They’re still playing games, and mostly without major frame pacing issues. It’s just unfortunate that Intel and AMD haven’t really launched anything new into this market for such a long time.

Biggest Disappointment: Intel Instability

The last category is the Biggest Disappointment. Intel gets this one for the second year running -- 2022 saw it going to AMD for the 4500. But this year’s disappointment puts all other ones into perspective.

The 13th and 14th gen stability issues get this year’s award, reminding us that where other disappointments simply suck, there’s always room to suck more. The 13th and 14th Gen CPUs experienced a mix of problems, including fab-level oxidation defects confirmed by Intel all the way up to wider-scale stability issues relating to voltage and microcode. Intel fumbled the handling of this and lost consumer confidence, dragging its feet on a response and then trying to craft a careful narrative when it finally did respond.

This was followed-up by the Ultra 200 series, which went back to simply being a disappointing set of products rather than a truly catastrophic failure. But this industry needs Intel and AMD to compete in a healthy environment: Intel of the past showed us what happens when the market has only one dominating vendor, and NVIDIA in GPUs shows us similar. It’s just not the job of consumers to prop-up a company that sells sub-par products -- or in the case of the disappointment this year, ones which have potential time-bomb failures baked-in. In the very least, Intel at least eventually responded with microcode patches that the company says has fixed the issue.

Best CPUs of 2024 Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Pricing today is a giant variable. It moves all the time, and especially as we approach Black Friday. All of this was based on pricing at the time we wrote this story, which is leading into Black Friday. Remember that we almost always consider price in our choices, so some of those may move around as prices fluctuate.

It’s always weird when some of the best parts are prior generation components, but that’s becoming more common in both the CPU and GPU space lately.

The biggest area that’s lacking in CPUs right now is the sub-$100 market, which is aging with the 12100F and 13100F. The R5 5600 is only rarely sub-$100 right now, but would probably become the go-to choice if it ever solidifies in that range. Sub-$200 is better, but still mostly older components.

That’s it for this round-up though. We love working on these and they’re a ton of fun to work back through all the components and refresh ourselves. It’s also nice to have some more positive lookbacks at components to remind us all that there have been some pretty good launches.

We have a lot more of this coming up, including a Best Cases of 2024 story that we’re excited to finish and post.


AMD's Silent Launch: Ryzen 5 7600X3D CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 7800X3D, 5700X3D, 9800X3D

19 novembre 2024 à 21:18
AMD's Silent Launch: Ryzen 5 7600X3D CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 7800X3D, 5700X3D, 9800X3Djimmy_thang November 19, 2024

We analyze the 7600X3D’s all-core/single-core frequency, efficiency, gaming benchmarks, and productivity performance

The Highlights

  • The 7600X3D is a 6-core, 12-thread X3D AM4 CPU that’s sold from Micro Center
  • The cheaper 7600X performs better in some specific frequency-constrained scenarios that can’t utilize the extra cache
  • The 7600X3D is one of the most efficient CPUs we’ve tested yet
  • Original MSRP: $300
  • Release Date: August 30, 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Intro

AMD somewhat secretly launched its R5 7600X3D. It’s a 6-core, 12-thread X3D part that we bought for $300 from Micro Center in Charlotte. AMD didn’t email us about this CPU, didn’t do review sampling, and just sort of quietly launched it to the market through Micro Center. It’s similar to the 5600X3D launch (read our review here). 
This runs on Zen 4 and is advertised as having a maximum 4.7 GHz boost clock and 4.1 GHz base clock. TDP is listed at 65W. AMD’s 7600X has a higher 105W TDP and runs an advertised maximum clock of 5.3 GHz, or 4.7 GHz base. That’ll make the 7600X better in some specific frequency-constrained scenarios that can’t utilize the extra cache, like in our non-gaming tests, but it’ll also make it more power hungry and having that extra cache normally allows better performance in gaming, even if the frequency is lower, and it tends to be more efficient.

Editor's note: This was originally published on November 7, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing

Patrick Lathan

Testing, Video Editing

Mike Gaglione

Video Editing, Camera

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


That’d make the 7600 more of a direct comparison for efficiency testing, as its TDP is also 65W.

The 7600X3D was a surprise to us. A few weeks ago, we had a viewer ask why we hadn’t tested it yet -- the answer was that we didn’t know it existed, and we’re excited to work on it now. The CPU ends up being one of the most efficient we’ve yet tested thanks to its low TDP and high performance.

Let’s get into the review.

AMD R5 7600X3D Overview & Specs

Technically, the CPU is currently a Micro Center-exclusive like the 5600X3D, so we’re not sure if that’ll change or how many they’ll have.

Getting into pricing first:

CPU Price Comparison | GamersNexus (Early November, 2024)

Newegg PriceAmazon Price
AMD 9800X3D (MSRP $480)
AMD 9950X$585$600
AMD 9900X$430$383
AMD 9700X$327$325
AMD 7950X3D$598 (OOS)$598
AMD 7950X$493$487
AMD 7900X$396$319
AMD 7900$358$368
AMD 7800X3D$449 (OOS)$476
AMD 5700X3D$229$187
Intel 285K$630 (OOS)NFS / OOS
Intel 265K$400$400
Intel 245K$320$320
Intel 14900K$440$440
Intel 14700K$347$347
Intel 13900KNFS / OOS$445
Intel 13700KNFS / OOS$343
Intel 12900K$310$277

Currently, the 7600X non-3D (watch our review) is $224 on Newegg and $208 on Amazon at the time of reporting. It’s $190 from Micro Center, which is the more like-for-like comparison to the $300 7600X3D.

Other relevant parts include the 7800X3D at 8 cores and 16 threads, priced at $480 or so on Amazon and $450 on Micro Center’s site. Between the two, it’s $150 to $180 more expensive to get the R7 7800X3D (watch our review) or the new 9800X3D, which is $480.

Intel’s most relevant, modern competition might include the $320 245K, $350 14700K, $344 13700K, or, oddly, the 12900K at $277.

This review is going to be kept as simple as possible. We just launched a massive deep-dive into the 9800X3D and included a ton of charts, so coming off of all that hard work, we’re trying to go with a straight-forward review today. If you want more depth and more discussion with even more charts, make sure to check out the 9800X3D review

For now, let’s get into a simple review of the 7600X3D.

AMD R5 7600X3D Frequency

AMD R5 7600X3D All-Core Frequency

We’ll start with a frequency inspection to understand the performance we see later.

Here’s an all-core workload. The 9800X3D we just reviewed ran at about 5225 MHz average, which is an impressive clock to hold for a 3D V-Cache part. It’s also a flat hold of the frequency thanks to the extra power budget. The 7800X3D fluctuates more due to the power constraint, holding around 4850 MHz on average.

The 7600X3D comes in below that, at 4700 to 4730 MHz, also moving up and down through the test.

For perspective, the 7600X non-3D part ran at about the same clock as the 9800X3D, up around 5225 MHz. If you see the 7600X outperform the 7600X3D in some tests, that won’t be a surprise: Anything which relies less on the extra cache than on higher clocks will see a regression in performance. This is less prevalent on the Zen 5 9800X3D due to its higher power budget and because the 9700X had a lower power budget.

AMD R5 7600X3D Single-Core Frequency

This chart is for the maximum single-core boost during a Cinebench single-threaded workload. This allows us to see how fast the cores go when unlikely to breach power limits.

The 9800X3D we just reviewed held the same 5225 MHz clock we saw in all-core testing and did so throughout the benchmark.

The 7800X3D ran faster than its all-core workload, which is more typical. That had it at 5050 MHz during this test on the fastest core per interval.

The 7600X3D is far slower than that, with a comparatively huge drop to 4750 MHz for the fastest single core per interval. That’s a large drop that will likely contribute to losses in certain titles, maybe like Final Fantasy, more than the core count difference between the two would.

The 7600X ran at 5450 MHz for the fastest single core, which will also benefit it in lightly threaded scenarios where the extra cache doesn’t contribute much.

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

AMD R5 7600X3D Gaming Benchmarks

Efficiency: Baldur’s Gate 3

For gaming efficiency first, we were impressed with the 7600X3D’s efficient performance in Baldur’s Gate 3. It’s the new most-efficient CPU in our testing.

Our efficiency benchmarks are a combination of both power drawn during the test and the performance output in the test, which is FPS in this situation. Tweaking either dial can improve efficiency since it’s a calculation of the two.

The 7600X3D ended up at 42.8W in this test, which has it reduced from the 5700X3D, 5800X3D (watch our review), and 7800X3D. It’s among the lowest power draw parts in this test, alongside the older R7 2700. With the 12W reduction from the 7800X3D and with performance similar to the 5700X3D, the 7600X3D ends up at 2.7 FPS/W, which is an awesome result that we didn’t expect to see. The 9800X3D is alongside it at the top, roughly tied with the 7800X3D at 2.3 to 2.4 FPS/W. This is a strong start. And for the 7600, that landed at 1.6 FPS per watt, which puts it above the 5600X, below the 5800X3D, and predictably above the 7600X, but it’s still below the 7600X3D.

Efficiency: Final Fantasy XIV

Final Fantasy 14: Dawntrail also has insanely efficient performance. The CPU is, once again, not the best performer on the charts, but it encroaches on the top and manages to do so while at 34W during this benchmark. Because the power is so much lower overall, the efficiency climbs despite a reduction in max FPS versus better AMD parts.

The end result is a 10.3 FPS/W rating, the highest we’ve seen, against 8.3 FPS/W on the 7800X3D. The 7800X3D is reaching the upper bound of what it can achieve for performance: It’s possible that this number increases with the launch of the RTX 5090, but for now, it’s stuck at 8.3 FPS/W. The 7600X original part pulls a little more power and performs far worse, landing it down at 5.6 FPS/W. That’s still ahead of anything Intel has to offer, including the 245K at 4.3 FPS/W, but nowhere close to the 7600X3D.

Stellaris

In Stellaris, the 7600X3D required 33.1 seconds to complete the simulation. This reduces the time required from the 7600X’s 36-second entry by 8%. The 9600X, from Zen 5, outperforms the 7600X3D, benefiting from the overall Zen 5 uplift we’ve seen in this specific game. Aside from that, everything else above the 7600X3D is significantly more expensive, including the 285K at $630 but providing only a 1.8% reduction in time required to simulate.

Against the 5700X3D (read our review), the 7600X3D sees a 14% reduction in time required. The same is true compared to the 5600X3D.

The new 9800X3D is aided hugely by its architecture and frequency, requiring 22% less time than the 7600X3D. The 7800X3D benefits from a 5.4% reduction in time required. Overall, the 7600X3D encroaches on the 7800X3D while being significantly lower cost, but can’t come close to the 9800X3D.

Dragon’s Dogma 2

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is up now. This is another title where the 9800X3D saw strong performance.

For this game, the 9800X3D holds a 21% lead over the 7600X3D in average FPS, at about 129 FPS to 106. The lows are proportional to the increase in average FPS. There is no particularly abnormal advantage to those found on the 9800X3D, although they are good.

Compared to the 5700X3D’s 103 FPS AVG, the 7600X3D holds a small 3.1% lead. It’s 3.5% ahead of the prior generation 5600X3D, which was also Microcenter-exclusive.

As for Intel, key comparisons include the 245K (read our review) at 95 FPS AVG and priced similarly to the 7600X3D. This gives the 7600X3D a 12% advantage in average FPS over the new 245K, with lows again proportionally higher. The i7 and i9 CPUs from the 13th and 14th series are all roughly tied with the 7600X3D, but slightly ahead. The 5800X3D maintains its position at the top of this grouping, beaten only by its newer alternatives.

Starfield

Starfield is up now. This was another strong one for the 9800X3D when we reviewed it.

In this one, the 7600X3D ran at 122 FPS AVG. That means the 9800X3D’s 169 FPS result has it about 38% ahead of the 7600X3D, a significant jaunt. The 7800X3D ran at 145 FPS AVG, offering its own improvement of 19% over the 7600X3D. The 7600X3D is definitely a lower-end part than the two flagships. Compared to the 5700X3D though, the 7600X3D is technically improved -- though basically within error at 3.2% uplift. The 5600X3D gives the 7600X3D a lead of 8.2%, widening the gap in favor of the newer Micro Center-exclusive part.

Intel’s showing includes the 245K at about the same framerate and a similar price, the 12900K at a higher framerate, and the 13600K also ahead. The 7600X3D is stunted by a combination of its lower core count and its frequency, not able to leverage the cache to the same extent as the higher-end AMD X3D parts. The 7600X3D at least holds about a 20% uplift over the 7600X, which was down at 102 FPS AVG.

Baldur’s Gate 3

In Baldur’s Gate 3, the 9800X3D experienced a large performance boost that we spent several minutes digging into in its review. It’s an outlier.

The 7600X3D is more typical: It ran the game at 116 FPS AVG, which allows the 9800X3D another 38% lead. The lows remain impressive on the 9800X3D, followed by the prior 13 series and 14 series CPUs as the next most impressive for lows. The 7600X3D is overall “fine” for lows, but its position is predictable within this stack.

The 7800X3D posted a 126 FPS AVG in Baldur’s Gate, giving it a boost of 9% for the extra $180 or so -- that doesn’t seem worth it if you have a Micro Center near you. The 5700X3D remains pretty close by as well, with a 111 FPS AVG that would be indistinguishable from the results of the 7600X3D. The 5700X3D also benefits from a fiercely competitive price.

The 245K slips down this chart, especially with Windows 24H2. It’s at 93 FPS AVG, giving the 7600X3D a 25% lead in average FPS. Lows are about the same.

FFXIV Dawntrail

Final Fantasy 14: Dawntrail is next. This one has the 7600X3D at 349 FPS AVG with lows at 164 and 79 FPS. That positions it roughly tied with the 7800X3D, both of which appear to be encountering similar limits. The 9800X3D managed to break free of this bind and post a 373 FPS result. That’s good, but it’s not as impressive as we saw in other tests.

But this isn’t meant to be another review of the 9800X3D. The 7600X3D boosts over the 7600X’s 259 FPS AVG by 35%, leading the 259 FPS entry by a significant margin. X3D in general completely divides this chart, forming a rift below the 5600X3D and everything else.

Intel’s closest competitor is the 14900K, although it’s more expensive, up at 310 FPS AVG. The 7600X3D leads even the former flagship i9 by 13%. Its lead over the 5700X3D is noteworthy, at 16%. This is because of the 5700X3D’s drop in clocks, which we know to impact its Final Fantasy performance. That’s also why the 5600X3D runs higher performance: Its clocks are typically at least 300 MHz higher.

Rainbow Six Siege

Rainbow Six Siege is up now. In this one, the 7600X3D ran at 613 FPS AVG -- sorry, 613.3… That 0.3 is important, because elite FPS gamers can see even the difference between 0.000798 ms.

The 613.3 FPS result has it up alongside the 9600X and below the 9700X (read our review). The 7800X3D ran at 622 FPS AVG -- again, sorry, 622.1 -- which means it holds a 1.4% lead. That’s basically error. These CPUs are functionally the same, with lows differentiated only by how wildly variable this particular game is.

As for the 5700X3D, the lead from the 7600X3D is a more noteworthy 17%. There’s also a big jump over the 245K, way down at 476 FPS AVG.

Generally though, the top CPUs are mostly the same. The 9800X3D is boosted, but not in a huge way like in some other games. We’re up against limits.

F1 24

In F1 24, the 7600X3D ran at about 409 FPS AVG and was flanked by the 5800X3D and 7800X3D. The 7800X3D holds a 7.2% lead in average FPS, with a big jump in the 1% and 0.1% lows. Both are ultimately acceptable. The 5800X3D’s 391 FPS average gave up a 4.4% lead to the 7600X3D. The gap against the 7600X is massive, at 409 FPS to 312 FPS, or a 31% uplift for the 7600X3D. That’s a big climb when considering the frequency and cache changes discussed earlier.

Intel’s 245K is far down the chart, more similar to the 7600X than the newer X3D variant. The 14900K is closer, but still behind at 385 FPS AVG.

Total War: Warhammer 3

In Total War: Warhammer 3, the 7600X3D ran at 484 FPS AVG. That has it in the top grouping again, but technically behind the 14700K. Realistically, in average FPS, they’re the same; however, the X3D CPUs all have large advantages in frametime consistency and pacing, as illustrated by the 1% and 0.1% lows.

The 9800X3D and 7800X3D are both encountering external limits. 

The real takeaway though is that Intel continues to get bodied by X3D: the 265K and 285K both suffer from the same impact we saw to the 14900K (read our review) and 13900K, where frametime consistency plummets and large frametime spikes pop-up more frequently. This affects the averaging as well, since it drags everything down, which leads to the 285K and 265K seeming to perform worse than a lower thread-count 245K. This is a repeatable result. Even the DDR5-8600 285K entry has worse lows than the 245K, and that’s all because of scheduling. There are community mods to try and help with this, but we test games as the developer ships and maintains them.

AMD R5 7600X3D Production Benchmarks

Production workloads aren’t a big focus for R5 CPUs, so we’ll fly through these to hit the basics.

Blender

In Blender 3D rendering on the CPU, the 7600X3D required 21.3 minutes to complete a frame of the GN intro animation. This is one of the slower results, putting it in-line with the 5700X3D, 3700X (read our revisit), and 5800X. The 7600X is faster than the 7600X3D, which isn’t new behavior: While the 9800X3D actually outperformed the 9700X, generally speaking, X3D CPUs are worse in production-heavy, all-core tasks than the CPUs they stack the cache on top of. That’s because the frequency comes down on prior generations, mostly for thermal budget reasons, and this is also why Zen 5 X3D is so interesting.

So for the 7600X3D, we’re back to a situation where it’d typically make more sense to buy any other CPU above it on the chart for heavy workstation use cases that we test. If you’re building a machine that’s gaming-focused first and foremost, then the 7600X3D should still be in consideration. It’s capable of handling production-style work on the side, but there are better options for a build more purely focused on that kind of work.

The 7600X3D is beaten by the 12600K, 5800X, and many other CPUs. Blender scales cleanly with thread count, and that shows here. The 285K is also relatively competitive in this particular test, as are the 265K and 245K.

Chromium

In Chromium code compile, the 7600X3D required 208 minutes to complete the compile. That has it way down the chart and near the 5800X and 5800X3D. The 7600X3D is struggling with its thread deficit and just wasn’t built to excel at the production applications we test with. Even the 3700X isn’t distant.

The 7600X benefits from a time reduction to 198 minutes in this test, with the 9600X and 12600K ahead of that.

7-Zip Compression

In 7-Zip file compression, the 7600X3D ended up completing about 87K MIPS, putting it ahead of the 3700X and behind the 5700X3D. The 7600X is again better, at 91K MIPS, or improved by 5.2%.

As with other pre-Zen 5 X3D parts, if doing this kind of work heavily, it’d make more sense to buy something else. The part is acceptable for its price if gaming is the primary focus.

7-Zip Decompression

Decompression is similar: The 3700X outmatches the 7600X3D marginally, the 7600X3D is just ahead of the 12600K (watch our review) now, and the 7600X non-3D runs 8.8% faster.

The 9800X3D stood out here as improving on the 9700X, benefitted by its higher power budget that enables higher boosting. We covered this in the review. The 16-core parts, like the 9950X and 7950X, have a major advantage in this workload that the 7600X3D can’t unlock with its 6-core configuration.

Adobe Premiere

Adobe Premiere is tested with the Puget Suite, using a mix of RAW performance, intraframe, effects, and processing. The result is in aggregate points.

The 7600X3D scored 7832 points, which has the 7600X ahead of it by 4.2% at 8159. Next above that is the 12600K. The 245K posts a significant gain over the 7600X3D here as well. Against prior parts, the 7600X3D at least improves upon the 5700X3D and 5600X3D components in a more noticeable way. It’s just not impressive on its own.

Adobe Photoshop

In Adobe Photoshop and tested with Puget Suite again, the 7600X3D fell down the charts to 14600K levels of performance and functionally tied with the 245K. That’s an OK spot to be, but AMD dominates the top half of this chart with other components -- including the 7600X. The reason for this drop comes down to the loss in frequency, which is important to Photoshop right now.

AMD R5 7600X3D Conclusion

Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!

The efficiency on the 7600X3D is crazy. That’s great, but most people -- especially in this part of the market -- don’t buy on efficiency. From a pure performance standpoint, we get the expected Zen 4 behaviors: The 7600X3D is a little worse in production than its non-X3D counterpart in most of our non-gaming tests, but is far superior in gaming tests. Because an R5, like an “Ultra” 5, is targeted at gaming, that’s the most important aspect.

Performance achieves most of what the 7800X3D would have to offer, but at $300. For gaming, it’s a better option than Intel’s $300 options, especially over the new 245K at $320, but worse in non-gaming tasks. If you’re mostly playing games and have a budget limited to about $300 on the CPU, we think the 7600X3D makes good sense. The 9800X3D offers a meaningful uplift at $480, but is also a huge jump in price and that extra money would possibly be better spent on a better GPU to unlock more performance. 


The 7600X3D’s biggest strength is its impressive efficiency. Its biggest weakness is its core count, where non-gaming tasks will be restrained. For users who tend to mix heavier “work” applications than gaming, we’d encourage considering other options to better suit those needs. Our 9800X3D review goes into some of that. But for gaming-first users near a Micro Center, the 7600X3D performs overall well.


A New Type of Computer Case | HAVN HS 420 Thermal Benchmarks & Review

15 novembre 2024 à 20:53
A New Type of Computer Case | HAVN HS 420 Thermal Benchmarks & Reviewjimmy_thang November 15, 2024

We take an in-depth look at the HAVN HS420’s unique airflow options as well as its thermals and build quality

The Highlights

  • HAVN is a new brand from the CaseKing group and the HS420 is one of the most unique cases we’ve seen in a long time
  • In terms of thermals, the case just does fine and is beaten by cheaper ones
  • The case has excellent overall construction quality, innovative ease-of-installation features and fan mounting options, and experiments with new cooling approaches
  • Original MSRP: $200
  • Release Date: October 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

This is the most excited we’ve been about a case in a long time. HAVN's case focuses on trying to innovate on cooling performance. In the vertical GPU orientation, the bottom-mounted fans install at an angle and direct the air towards the glass and use an included glass flow guide to direct the air away from the GPU. That might seem counter-intuitive, but this will be easier to explain using our 3D animation.

HAVN -- that’s the name of the brand for this case -- is separating the hot exhaust air out the bottom of the GPU from the cooler intake, pushing intake at the glass side panel of the case and almost sort of “bouncing” it into the front of the video card. There are trade-offs, but it’s a novel approach for a case.

Editor's note: This was originally published on October 17, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing, Writing

Patrick Lathan

Testing

Mike Gaglione

Camera

Vitalii Makhnovets

Camera, Video Editing

Tim Phetdara

3D Animation, Camera

Andrew Coleman

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


The case also comes in a standard horizontal GPU configuration, which effectively disassembles the entire bottom fan tray solution into a more traditional, elevated flat bottom case. It’s quick to pull the VGPU option apart entirely and reconstruct it. We’ll come back to these animations when we explain the airflow patterns.

There are two spots for rear fans, enabling a lot of combinations of intake or exhaust -- the rear-bottom has a dust filter, indicating the intent. The top is more usual, and the side can be either fully filled with fans or filled with drive cages in a sort of spine-like setup.

The case also has large, well-made panels that are heavily ventilated, including an interesting rails system that glides the panels into place. 

We noticed some similar manufacturing techniques and processes to Hyte, and checking with Hyte, they use the same factory. The two companies aren’t related, but the panel quality shines through from the shared source.

This case is called the HAVN HS420. HAVN is a new brand that’s part of ProGamersware, which is part of the CaseKing company group. CaseKing is one of the largest computer hardware retailers in Europe. 

The HAVN HS420 is $200, with the HAVN HS420 VGPU at $270. That’s a big jump and accounts for the PCIe riser, bottom fan tray, and additional glass.

We’re excited to test this one, so let’s get into it.

The first HAVN case is pretty cool.

We actually found the case interesting enough that we’re doing our first fan optimization guide in years. We used to do these a lot for major case launches, but we’re basically testing a ton of alternative configurations in addition to the 6 or 7 we did for this review. That’ll be a separate story later since it requires a ton of additional testing. But for now, we still went heavy on configuration testing.

HAVN says its team members include people with experience from Fractal, NZXT, Cooler Master, Sapphire, and others. In addition to having previously worked for some of its now-competition, HAVN also has a hit list of cases it’s targeting:

HAVN has called-out a list of competitors for its HS420, including the Phanteks NV7, Lian Li O11D XL (not the EVO), Corsair 5000D, NZXT H9 (2023, assuming they'll introduce a new one), and the Fractal Torrent. For the HS 420 VGPU, it's the HYTE Y60 (although the Y70 may be more fair). These are the cases that HAVN intends to outcompete at launch.

As for our own list, we’d also bring attention to price competition from the HYTE Y70 non-touch, the Fractal North XL, the Antec Flux Pro with 6 fans, and the Montech KING 95 Pro. We’re highlighting these primarily for proximity in price to the $200 case while still being good cases.

HAVN HS420 Specs

HS 420HS 420 VGPU
Form FactorMid TowerMid Tower
MaterialSGCC sheet metal, tempered glass, ABS, Nylon, zinc alloy, NdFeB magnetsSGCC sheet metal, tempered glass, ABS, Nylon, zinc alloy, NdFeB magnets
Case Dimensions (L x W x H)541 x 259.5 x 547 mm541 x 259.5 x 547 mm
Net Weight17.84 kg19 kg
Warranty3 years3 years
USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C11
USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A22
Audio Jack11
Power & Reset Button11
Motherboard Form FactorE-ATX (Max Width 277 mm) / ATX / M-ATX / Mini-ITXE-ATX (Max Width 277 mm) / ATX / M-ATX / Mini-ITX
Expansion Slots66 horizontal or 4 vertical
Fan SupportMaximum Amount: 11
Top: 3 x 120 / 3 x 140 mm
Front: -
Left: -
Right: 3 x 120 / 3 x 140 mm
Bottom: 3 x 120 / 3 x 140 mm
Rear: 2 x 120 / 2 x 140 mm (Max thickness: 30mm)
Maximum Amount: 11
Top: 3 x 120 / 3 x 140 mm
Front: -
Left: -
Right: 3 x 120 / 3 x 140 mm
Bottom: 3 x 140 mm
Rear: 2 x 120 / 2 x 140 mm (Max thickness: 30mm)
CPU Tower Cooler ClearanceHeight: Up to 185 mmHeight: Up to 185 mm
RAM ClearanceHeight: If the radiator thickness is greater than 65 mm: 420 mm - 32 mm / 360 mm - 43 mmHeight: If the radiator thickness is greater than 65 mm: 420 mm - 32 mm / 360 mm - 43 mm
Liquid Cooling SupportTop: 280 / 360 / 420 mm (Thickness: 65mm, not overlapping with RAM)
Front: -
Left: -
Right: 280 / 360 / 420 mm (Thickness: 60mm w/ GPU >317mm, 80mm w/ top AIO)
Bottom: 280 / 360 / 420 mm (Thickness: 120mm)
Rear: -
Top: 280 / 360 / 420 mm (Thickness: 65mm w/ taller RAM) [Ed. note: this is the same]
Front: -
Left: -
Right: 280 / 360 / 420 mm (Thickness: 60mm w/ GPU >317mm, 80mm w/ top AIO)
Bottom: -
Rear: -
GPU SupportLength: Up to 480 mm
Width: 195 mm
Height: 2 - 5 Slots
Length: Up to 470 mmWidth: 195 mmHeight: 2 - 5 Slots
Power Supply SupportATX / SFX / SFX-L PSUs Length: Up to 220mm (Clearance - 290mm)ATX / SFX / SFX-L PSUs Length: Up to 220mm (Clearance - 290mm)
StorageRight Fan Mount: 4 Storage Bays: 4 x 3.5'' / 8 x 2.5''
Cable Management Tray: 1 Storage Bay: 1 x 3.5'' / 2 x 2.5''
Storage Bay Included: 4x
Right Fan Mount: 4 Storage Bays: 4 x 3.5'' / 8 x 2.5''
Cable Management Tray: 1 Storage Bay: 1 x 3.5'' / 2 x 2.5''
Storage Bay Included: 4x
Internal Display SupportVESA Mounting: 75 x 75 mm / 100 x 100 mm
Display Size: 14 in. (Max)
Location: Front Right Pillar
VESA Mounting: 75 x 75 mm / 100 x 100 mm
Display Size: 14 in. (Max)
Location: Front Right Pillar
Dust FilterFront: -
Bottom: 1 (Removable)
Top: 1 (Built-in)
Right: 1 (Built-in)
Rear Bottom: 1 (Removable)
Front: -
Bottom: 1 (Removable)
Top: 1 (Built-in)
Right: 1 (Built-in)
Rear Bottom: 1 (Removable)

Specs copied from manufacturer materials, please read review for our own measurements and opinions

The Build

The HS 420 is an unusual-looking case. The headlining feature is the panoramic glass panel, which is bent at a 90-degree angle with a tight radius. There’s a jutting-out cable management area that sticks out under the motherboard, a design consistency with rounded edges even under the case, and rubber string-like cable management suspension in the grommets.

The panel rolls into the case with four plastic wheels, then slots into place with support along the whole bottom edge. It takes some getting used to, but HAVN includes stickers detailing removal. The manufacturing precision required to get this working, and working well, is beyond what we're used to seeing and is executed expertly. 

All of the exterior panels are firmly magnetically attached and all include optional screw holes for extra security while shipping. You hear in most of our reviews that we favor at least optional screws for panel security to prevent issues.

The visual theming is consistent throughout the whole case. It even has lots of obrounds -- vocabulary that we haven’t had to bust out since the Odyssey X.

The case’s sharp angles are rounded off, like the edges and corners on the PSU enclosure and the bottom fan bracket in the VGPU SKU. 

The HS 420 was impressively packed with a level of care that we usually only see with pre-builts: It has instructions on the box about how to correctly unload the case, a big "START HERE" label for the manual and accessories, and even a custom-shaped piece of foam under the fabric loop on the top panel to hold its shape. The manual itself is well done and reminds us of how Fractal does its own manuals, which we’ve praised several times.

The accessory kit includes a VESA mount, ESD-safe gloves, and extra combs for the rubber cable organizers inside the case. The only really important things that are missing from the accessory kit are spares for the variety of unusual screws used throughout the case. We're used to seeing screw organizers in $200+ cases, but HAVN instead includes labeled reusable bags… with unlabeled disposable bags inside. 

The only difference between the HS420 and HS420 VGPU is the vertical GPU hardware. The cheaper non-VGPU model comes with a normal fan tray in the bottom of the case and a GPU support bracket, neither of which are included with the VGPU (since they're replaced by other parts). 

The bracket is solid cast zinc alloy, braced against a completely rigid section of the PSU shroud to support the GPU at its furthest corner. It works better than most GPU supports and we liked it. Our only complaint is that the support can only work as shown in the manual for GPUs up to ~300mm long: any longer and the bracket can't reach all the way to the end.

As for the VGPU model, it comes with a preinstalled four-slot vertical GPU bracket and what HAVN claims is a PCIe 5.0 riser cable. Currently, there are no PCIe 5.0 consumer GPUs; however, it’s possible the 50-series may go in this direction. There is not a great non-enterprise way to validate the 5.0 claim from HAVN and performance impact is yet unknown, but likely minimal.

The VGPU kit isn’t sold separately at launch. 

The VGPU model’s bottom fan bracket is replaced with an angled bracket for 3x 140mm fans and a curved glass pane intended to direct the air. The GPU bracket can be adjusted back and forth, which is necessary in order to get the corner of the GPU flush with the curved airflow shield as shown in the manual. Our 4070 Ti Super isn’t fat enough to get as close to the shield as HAVN suggests. Using it precisely as intended requires a GPU with a cooler that's four slots thick.

Even without the VGPU hardware, HAVN recommends an unusual airflow pattern for the HS 420. Top exhaust, side intake, and bottom intake are all typical, but all of HAVN's recommended configurations show the lower rear slot as filtered intake and the upper rear slot as exhaust. We had tested this even prior to checking HAVN’s recommendations, as it does make sense to flow the air in and around the GPU.

There are 11 total fan mounts regardless of SKU, all of which can accept either 140 or 120mm fans except the VGPU's bottom mounts (which are 140mm only). No fans are included with the case, but two PWM splitters with 6 outputs each are included, so up to twelve PWM fans can be controlled from two inputs.

To help explore airflow in this unique enclosure, we made a 3D animation

HAVN HS420 Airflow Animation

There are a ton of potential airflow paths with the way this case is built. Our custom 3D animation we made will help explain some of the more unique ones.

First, let’s look at how the VGPU kit will direct air. 

This will cover the theory, but we’ll talk actual performance and impact to thermals and acoustics in our charts soon.

Mounting the fans to the VGPU fan bracket at the bottom of the case angles them toward the glass side panel, resulting in an indirect flow path to the GPU fans. The bracket itself is at about a 30-degree angle. The shortest and most direct path to the GPU would be flat fans on the bottom pointed straight at the video card, but that path would sort of “collide” with the hot exhaust coming out of the bottom of the card. This designed and angled path tries to almost “bounce” the air off of the glass or flow it out and nearby, at which point the video card fans will pull that air in. There are two interesting challenges here:

First is the absence of a wall: Vertically-mounted video cards, which is the intended use with this kit, with vertically oriented fins will eject the hot air down out the bottom of the card and up. In this orientation, that means hot air shoots straight down into the intake fans, theoretically getting mixed-in with the cool intake as it is shot at the glass. But since there’s no wall, the air will also enter the GPU more directly and at a wider spread at the front of it, including some potential exhaust, and likely at higher speed. Thanks to Bernoulli’s Principle, the general idea is that air increasing in velocity will decrease in pressure and vice versa, although there are exceptions. 

The upside is that the air will be directly fed to the GPU. 

Adding a glass shroud to the fan tray acts as a flow guide, but will also require the air to now make multiple turns to get to the GPU. The glass attaches to the back of the angled fan tray. This flow guide will push cool air at the glass side panel, at which point it’ll either physically deflect or will be overpowered and pulled-in by the GPU’s own fans. Likewise, hot air exiting the GPU bottom out of vertically oriented fins will now get shoved behind the glass and behind the fan tray. The back of the fan tray is fully enclosed by steel and glass, so there won’t be any hot air ingress. The glass shroud walls the hot air off. Instead, it ends up in a small chamber between the cable management shroud and the fan tray. This air will need to find a way out, and the most likely pathway is the bottom-rear fan. We’ll come back to that.

This results in the intake air now making multiple turns, which will affect both air velocity and air pressure: Velocity will decrease at the point it enters the GPU fans as a result of the turns and indirect path. Because the fans themselves are angled, the air ends up making close to a 90-degree turn -- shallower than if they were flat in the bottom with a flow guide, but still a big change in direction. 

The glass shroud itself has two points where it bends and a straight section: The first is a 40-degree angle, then about a 50-degree angle. These bends will help reduce resistance as compared to harder angles.

Back to the hot air from the card that was stuck behind the tray, glass, and between the cable management indent: In theory, as exhaust, a rear-bottom fan should help pull hot air trapped under the video card and behind the tray out of the case. It’ll also steal some of the cool intake from the back-most bottom-mounted fan in the tray, but the angle of the tray should reduce this impact. 

If the back fan is flipped to intake, it might help push that hot air through and toward the front of the case, where it’ll likely slowly be pulled up and out by the CPU cooler fans or top-mounted fans.

Flow-through video cards like most modern cards, including ours, will exhaust their hot air through the right-side of the card and effectively straight at the chipset and RAM area of the motherboard. A CPU tower cooler will pull this air out. In absence of that, a top-mounted liquid cooler with exhaust fans could remove it.

As for video cards with horizontally oriented fins, there’s no real downside with this setup since they can typically neither breathe nor exhaust through the bottom of the card. It would mostly exit the right and left sides, typically out the rear PCIe slots. These fin orientations are less common these days.

HAVN clearly thought about the configuration with the fan tray and the glass. There are a lot of intentional angles and flow direction is clearly intention. This configuration was thought about. We’ll have to test how much the glass and angled intake actually do by running thermals against just standard flat-bottom intake fans.

Let’s visualize some other setups in 3D: This configuration uses a vertical GPU, removes the bottom fans and the shield, and installs 3x side intake fans, 2x rear exhaust fans, and 1x top-front intake positioned about 30mm away from the front of the tower cooler. 

In this orientation, flow follows this path: It mostly enters the side, at which point that air is pulled toward the tower cooler and vertical GPU by the fans on each. The GPU hot exhaust will mostly get pulled out of the way of intake through the bottom-rear exhaust fan, which also helps provide the currents needed to pull intake toward the GPU from both the bottom of the case -- passively through the floor -- and the lower side intake fan. The rear exhaust fan at the top helps remove exhaust from both the CPU tower cooler and the vertical GPU fin stack. 

Finally, front-top intake is interesting: We always see people asking why you’d “fight” physics, but the rate of passive molecular through heat rising is incredibly slow. The truth of the matter is that a 1000+ RPM fan will overpower just about any natural air movement, and so what matters more is its access to external air, not whether it’s at the top or bottom of the case. Top intake would provide direct, external air straight into the CPU cooler. 

Putting a top exhaust fan here will mostly serve to steal cool side intake and exhaust it before it ever hits the front of the CPU tower cooler, reducing cool air available to the CPU tower. Now, you could instead move that fan back to be rear exhaust after the CPU tower cooler, and that’s a test we actually did run.

There are a ton of other configuration options in this case. We’re just showing what you can do with 6 fans in our animation. We have about 5 other configurations we ran, but we’ll go through all of those in our testing section.

There are tons more combinations and testing this will be complicated, but this should at least get you in the mindset for thinking about it as we work through the benchmarking and optimized layouts.

Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!

Cable Management, Drives, and IO

The HS 420 is a big enthusiast case that exists in an era where big enthusiast components are dwindling (GPUs aside). Despite HAVN repeatedly referring to the HS 420 as a mid tower, it's imposingly large at 18-19kg (empty).

If you want a big case, you have to find something to put in it. Multi-GPU is dead, which removes some motivation for ridiculous open-loop setups, and 3.5" and 2.5" storage drives are becoming less common. Despite its size and claimed support for motherboards up to 277mm, we don't recommend installing E-ATX boards in the HS 420, as they'll overlap the cable cutouts and look messy. That brings us, finally, to the VESA mount.

The mount can optionally replace the side fan bracket with a 14-inch screen inside the case, which could pull some consumers away from the Hyte Y70 Touch at the cost of some drive support.

Even if you don't need the drive trays, though, they look cool enough to keep installed. Each of the four boxes can fit either one 3.5" drive or two 2.5" drives, with one mount recessed for cable clearance. 


Cable management is laid-out logically and has plenty of velcro straps, although cables need to be managed tightly to keep the flexible center of the side panel from bulging out. The ATX 24-pin, EPS12V, and potentially GPU and SATA cables all share a single channel, which requires more effort to manage. The screws and magnets are more than enough to keep the panel from popping off, though. The rubber strips in place of normal rubber grommets are also different.

At the rear of the case, the motherboard and GPU I/O is hidden within the rear panel, making it difficult to see or reach the ports. This is an unfortunate combination with the minimal front I/O, which consists of 2x USB Type-A ports and 1x USB Type-C, along with a single audio jack. On a positive note, the internal cable for the USB Type-C port is a flat ribbon cable that's easier to manage than the round kind.

HAVN HS420 Thermals

Thermal testing is complicated this time.

The case doesn’t come with fans. Because it endeavors to compete with the best cases on our charts, we needed to see if it could actually beat the best. We decided to standardize against a set of fans from one of the best cases on the charts: The Antec Flux Pro, which comes with 6 fans and has held the #1 rank in some tests recently. We pulled all 6 of its fans (4x 140, which is perfect for the bottom intake configuration and 2x 120 reverse blade), which allows us to make a direct head-to-head comparison. We’ve noted for a long time the limitations of our standardized fan test methods in cases, so for this review, we decided to experiment. We might start instead standardizing against a case that competes in a similar class, which would give fewer individual case reference points, but allow us to test against head-to-head competition in a controlled way with the same fans in a more optimized setup.

HAVN Test Configurations

So this marks sort of a new trial in our case reviews. It also enabled us to do more configurations for this case. Let us know if you like it and we’ll apply it to some future cases as well.

Here are the 8 configurations we ran. We only had a few days working on this case with Arrow Lake coming up, so we might do more later.

The tests labeled “A” are with some form of bottom intake. A1 has the angled tray and glass, A2 ditches the glass, and A3 goes flat-mount ditching both. The rest of their setup is the same.

Tests labeled “B” are with side intake. Remember, the budget is 6 fans to match the leading Flux Pro, so we stopped there for now. For this, we experimented with variations on the single 140mm fan in the top, moving it either in front of the cooler as intake or behind it as exhaust. We also experimented with the rear-bottom fan, swapping to either intake straight into the GPU or exhaust.

HAVN Only: Optimal Fan Placement by CPU & GPU Rank

This quick table shows the rank of each configuration in GPU thermals and CPU thermals. We’ll look at actual results in a moment, but this is a summary of the 6-fan budget. 

The best combined performer here was configuration B1, which had a vertical GPU without bottom fans, 3x side intake fans, 1x mid-front intake up top, and 2x rear exhaust fans. The best performer for GPU thermals was B3, which has a horizontal GPU, side intake, no bottom fans, and intake in the rear-bottom of the case, but it was at the cost of CPU thermals ranking 7th of 8 configurations. The best CPU performer was B2, which has a horizontal GPU, side intake fans, rear exhaust, and the top fan arranged as CPU tower intake.

Let’s move to individual data for inspection with just the HAVN case first.

HAVN Only: GPU Thermals at 100%

Here’s the chart for GPU thermals at full speed.

The total spread is 4.6 degrees, which is actually pretty wide for GPU thermal differences in our testing.

Starting with the glass flow guide: Our direct comparison of A1 vs. A2 has identical setup aside from the guide. On the chart, A1 with the angled fans and glass shroud performed the worst, with A2 performing 1.8 degrees better for GPU average temperature. That’s a real difference and outside of expected variance. A2 is identical but removes the glass shroud.

The best performer for the GPU was a horizontal GPU and side intake with B3. This isn’t too surprising. Horizontal GPUs often breathe better, but if you truly wanted a vertical GPU for display, our best-performing vertical setup was B1, which uses side intake, a top intake fan in front of the CPU cooler, and two rear exhaust fans. A3 is next, this time with 3x bottom intake fans but mounted flat rather than in the angled tray. This is a direct comparison to A1 and A2 without any changes. In our testing, it appears that the special bracket for the bottom fans and all the complicated curves and turns and glass are hindering performance. This makes sense. Air shooting straight in and without reroutes is just performing better with A3. 

HAVN Only: CPU Thermals at 100%

Looking at CPU thermals in detail: Configurations B2, B1, and A3 are functionally identical. A3 with the flush-mounted bottom intake fans did better for the CPU than those where the fans were angled at the glass. Config A2 was about 2 degrees worse than B2, so the total spread here is largely inconsequential. It’d make more sense to choose based on GPU performance than CPU tower performance between these configurations. Side intake is favored.

HAVN Only: VRM & RAM Thermals at 100%

For VRM and memory thermals, there’s another relatively wide spread of about 6 degrees on system memory. B1 runs at 13 degrees over ambient for DDR5, which is impressive. B3 runs at 19 degrees over ambient -- totally fine, but 6 degrees warmer shows an inefficiency. The cooler result benefits from an intake fan immediately above the RAM and VRM.

Time to get into the competitive benchmarks.

GPU Thermals: Full Speed

This chart is for GPU thermals with the fans at full speed. We’ve removed all configs for the HAVN case except the best and worst. You can find the full HAVN data in the prior charts. 

Again, remember that the HAVN case does not include fans. Because of this, its performance is basically whatever we want it to be, based on fans we choose. We normalized to the Antec Flux Pro, so that’s our direct comparison.

And the Flux Pro wins. Antec’s thermals are superior for the GPU while maintaining roughly equivalent noise levels, functionally noise-normalizing HAVN for the Flux Pro. The HAVN case still does well and ranks right alongside the Torrent, which has remained an impressive show of force for Fractal. It’s just that HAVN isn’t dominating the charts as much as we’d have liked for a case so thoughtfully focused on new approaches to fan placement. It’s a good start, though.

A1 has the bottom intake bracket and VGPU and landed lower down the chart. We’d favor the horizontal GPU solution. The HS420 HGPU B3 is outperforming the Antec C8, but only slightly outperforming the Hyte Y70 with half the fan count.

CPU Thermals: Full Speed

For CPU thermals, we’ve added B2 to this chart as it was the best for CPU performance.

At full fan speed, the HAVN with the best configuration we’ve tested so far landed functionally tied with the Flux Pro using its alternate PSU mount. Noise levels are about the same. This has the HAVN HS420 led by the Flux Pro with standard PSU orientation, the 216, and 207. The North XL is also about tied with the HS420, but is much louder at 45 dBA, where these HS420 configs land closer to 39-40dBA. The Antec comparison is the most relevant since the fans are identical.

HAVN HS420 Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

The case does fine. It’s sad to see it not do better with all the special tuning, but looking back at our emails, even the HAVN team itself thought that the horizontal GPU configuration would do better in our testing. They were right. The vertical GPU setup, as fancy as it is, is still about balancing looks. Vertical GPUs are often disadvantaged, and HAVN hasn’t defeated that here.

Thermals are our focus. From a pure thermal performance standpoint, HAVN has not become the new best on the charts. The ideas are there, and for a first case, they got close -- but it is beaten by cheaper cases on this front.

Cases aren’t all about thermals, though. Despite that being our top priority, all 3 of us (Patrick, Mike, and Steve) who were hands-on with the case would consider buying one.

We all spent a lot of time personally working on this case. Each of us has gone through full assembly at least once on the system. All 3 of us were in total agreement that the quality is overall phenomenal and that we can’t overstate the attention to detail put into the HS420. For length, we cut a lot of commentary from this review. As a rapid-fire list, some small details we liked: 

The top cover of the case has structural ribs that are specifically spaced to align with the hubs and edges of top-mounted fans, minimizing overlap with the fan blades. The right side panel does the same, intentionally aligning the blockages from structural elements with the dead zones on the fans. This is awesome attention to detail that we don’t commonly see. There are protective rubber dampers on everything: on the screws and the tabs that attach the fan trays to the case, on the 120mm adapters for the rear fans, on the posts that the bottom fan mounts rest on, on the airflow shield, and under a fragile corner in the middle of the rear panel. There are color-coded stickers with recommendations for routing cables through certain channels, and these stickers are placed over molded outlines. The case has optional screws everywhere, magnets to help click panels into place, and guides that are sturdy and well-built. The rear slots were thought-through with an optional filter on the bottom and none in the top, since blocking exhaust is pointless. The vertical GPU, despite its weaker performance, is positioned to maximize viability for hot cards.

It's easier to point out areas where this attention to detail is lacking, since we only really found two: first, there's no vibration damping for HDDs despite all the rubber washers elsewhere in the case, and second, the bottom filter is flimsy and doesn't eject smoothly.

The other main downside was just doing reconfigurations with the vertical GPU mount, which can make accessing cables along the motherboard challenging. Most people won’t do that more than once, though.

Case testing is complicated: It’s possible that a configuration with a different GPU, such as a 4090 Founders card, would behave differently. But based on our data, simpler might be better -- and the case would be $70 cheaper. Patrick and Steve both feel the same way, which is that we’d buy the $200 version of this case. It is much more competitive with direct peers at $200. At $270, it’s really only something you’d do for looks.

While the $200 case is worse than the Flux Pro thermally, the build quality and ease-of-installation features are far superior and the case is more future-looking with its concepts. The Flux Pro does well on tradition, and that’s just fine too. We like both cases. If you want something less traditional, HAVN manages to at least hit the basics while advancing the industry.

We don't want to beat a dead horse here, but this feels like the case that TRYX wanted to make with the LUCA L70 (read our review). This is a weird new design from an unknown company with some big money behind it, it's roughly the same size case as the L70, and the LUCA's price falls right between the two SKUs of the HS 420. The HS 420 is more solidly built, it's more practical, it has better cooling (once fans are added), and in our opinion, it looks better too.

Patrick said this about his concluding thoughts: “I would personally buy this case retail if I didn't need to fit a ton of drives; I haven't felt that way about a case we've covered in several years.”

Mike and Patrick both are hopeful that HAVN branches into smaller and cheaper cases. Patrick said, “I hope they don't just make a CLC. It feels inevitable that a company like this is going to make a CLC.”

The VGPU version is not really our thing. We think the cheaper one looks better and works better and is more widely compatible.

Wrapping things up, this is a great first showing from HAVN. The case represents a fantastic starting point for a platform to try and do some cool things thermally.


Intel Core Ultra 7 265K CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 285K, 245K, 7800X3D, 7900X, & More

8 novembre 2024 à 21:39
Intel Core Ultra 7 265K CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 285K, 245K, 7800X3D, 7900X, & Morejimmy_thang November 8, 2024

We test the 265K’s efficiency, gaming performance, production capabilities, and more

The Highlights

  • The 265K is a 20-core Arrow Lake CPU with 8 P cores and 12 E cores
  • In several cases, the 265K is less efficient than the 285K
  • The 265K is surrounded by good CPU options on all sides
  • Original MSRP: $404
  • Release Date: October 24, 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!

Intro

Now we’re reviewing the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K - Core Ultra 7 (Series 2) Arrow Lake 20-core 8P+12E LGA1851 125W Desktop Processor.

We initially found the “Series 2” on the product box to be confusing, but then we realized that this is the Core 200 Series, and since 2 is sort of like 200, it all makes sense. These names won’t cause any problems and are very clear…
This is going to be the simplest and shortest of our 3 reviews for this CPU lineup. If you want the full depth and technical detail, check out the 285K review for the deep-dive into efficiency, gaming, and production. This one is going to focus on just the charts and conveying information quickly for you all as we wrap this series (for now).

Editor's note: This was originally published on October 26, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing
Patrick Lathan

Mike Gaglione

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Camera

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


The 265K is currently available for $404 on Newegg and Amazon right now. That puts it predictably between the $630 285K and $320-$330 245K. As a recap, thus far, the 245K has made the least sense since it’s more gaming-oriented and less focused on potential workstation applications, whereas the 285K could maybe make an argument in some workstation or production use cases. The 265K theoretically balances between.

Intel 265K Price Comparison

We’ll start with a quick pricing recap of what’s available around the time we’re writing this review.

CPU Price Comparison | GamersNexusLate October, 2024

Newegg PriceAmazon Price
Intel 285K (MSRP $590)$630N/A
Intel 245K (MSRP $310)$330N/A
Intel 265K$404$404
Intel 14900K$470$470
Intel 14700K$375$350
Intel 13900KN/A$415
Intel 13700K$350$290
Intel 12900K$300$280
Intel 12600KF$160$160
AMD 9950X$600$710
AMD 9900X$430$430
AMD 9700X$330$330
AMD 7950X3D$600$600
AMD 7950X$510$510
AMD 7900X$400$400
AMD 7900$370$370
AMD 7800X3D$480$480

The 265K is about $404 right now, which is fitting, because…Error Lake value can’t be found.

The price has it similar to the 7900X, which is currently $400. The 7900 non-X is $370 or so, with the 9700X at $330. The 9900X is $430. AMD has this territory encircled with similarly priced options. The 7800X3D comes in 19% more expensive at $480 and would also be less viable in most production use cases we test, but far more viable in gaming scenarios. If you’re only doing one of those, that allows you to either ignore or focus on the 7800X3D (watch our review). If you’re doing both, that’d be where the 265K might make sense -- if it’s not beaten by Intel’s own 14700K at $350 and 13700K at $290. 

And AMD has announced that its 9800X3D will be arriving on November 7th. We’re not sure what it’ll cost yet, so it’s possible it’s not a direct comparison here.

As a reminder, other considerations for Arrow Lake are that it requires an entirely new platform and Z890 boards are some of the most expensive we’ve seen in a given class. It also benefits from faster, more expensive RAM in ways that other CPUs can cut costs and corners. As a positive though, the reduced power consumption means reduced cooler requirements as compared to the prior Intel generations, so that can reduce some cost.

That’s it for the basics and positioning. If you want more, check out the prior two reviews or the efficiency bench setup video. Let’s just get right into it.

Intel 265K Efficiency Testing

Our efficiency testing has been explained in-depth in two pieces now and briefly introduced in a third. To learn more about what we’re doing here, check out our 285K review and our preceding video where we set up our monstrous test bench.

Efficiency: 7-Zip Compression

We’ll start with 7-Zip compression efficiency. We’re just going with the ATX12V and EPS12V rails for now, as we still think these are the closest to accurate on our setup.

The 265K ended up at 163W in this test, which has the efficiency at 968 MIPS/W. That has the CPU as less efficient than the 285K, which pulled 162W on the same ATX12V and EPS12V rails, but produced a higher throughput, yielding a 1051 MIPS/W result.

AMD’s 7800X3D, 7700, 9700X, and everything else, including the 3700X (read our revisit) from 2019, ranks above the 265K as a result. The 265K really is only better than the 9950X, 2700 (read our revisit), 5800X, and Intel’s own lineup here.

Efficiency: 7-Zip Decompression

In decompression efficiency, the 265K repeats its rank and falls below the 1194.9 MIPS/W result of the 285K. The power drawn is the same since this test suite runs both consecutively and at about the same power level. The end result is that the 265K is marginally less efficient than the 245K, more meaningfully behind the 285K, and is otherwise mostly just ahead of the prior Intel CPUs. Generationally, the improvement on the 14700K is actually good. It’s 47%. It’s a real uplift, and Intel does deserve credit for that; however, again, the entire top half of the chart is AMD-dominated. It’s just not even close. The 7950X in Eco Mode leads the 265K in efficiency with an advantage of 87%. The 9700X (read our review) is cheaper and also holds a substantial lead, up at 1624 MIPS/W. The 9700X won’t produce as high of a result in this test as the 265K for raw performance, but in efficiency, it is more efficient.

Even the 9950X, which is AMD’s highest power draw non-HEDT part we’re testing right now, is more efficient than the 265K. This is partly because its performance is so much higher in this test.

Efficiency: Baldur’s Gate 3

Here’s gaming with Baldur’s Gate 3. Here, the 265K pulled 89W when measuring both the ATX12V and EPS12V rails. That has it similar to the 285K. We noticed during this testing an initially higher reading on the 265K by almost 10W exactly, but after troubleshooting Vcore and CPU Package Power, we were able to isolate that 10W as being from a measurement tool difference on the 265K platform. We were able to make adjustments to effectively calibrate it for the data we had from all other tests on this chart. As we’ve stated, this is all brand new methodology and is more complicated because of ASUS’ decisions to split the rails for the CPU, but we’re staying on top of hunting down these deviations and accounting for them. This also means we’re going to continue studying the measurements and tools to refine the readings.

With the 89W measurement, the 265K ends up just below the 285K for efficiency (tied when rounded). Its performance is lower, but power is similar, so the two are effectively equal. The TDP is the same on these CPUs, so if they’re drawing up to the power limit, then this is expected.

Neither of these is particularly impressive when considering the 7800X3D or 5700X3D, both of which have higher framerate and lower power consumption, resulting in higher efficiency. The 245K (read our review) is more efficient than the 285K and 265K, up at 1.3 FPS/W and tied with the 7700 and 9700X.

Efficiency: FFXIV Dawntrail

In Final Fantasy 14, the 265K calibrated to prior tests pulled 65.5W during our testing. We didn’t add a line item for ATX5V in this one since we’ve been saying that we don’t think its impact on the CPU is significant in any way.

This lands the 265K at around the same power consumption as the 285K for the same two rails. The efficiency is lower because the framerate is lower. The 245K is more efficient, up at 4.3 FPS/W. 

The 265K is the least efficient of these three parts so far on this chart. It’s still improved on the 14700K (read our review), but because the performance is regressive in this particular title -- and by a lot -- the efficiency struggles to take off despite the reduction in power consumption from what was 98.2W.

The 7800X3D has an efficiency lead at 8.3 FPS/W, or a 131% improvement. This is actual insanity. The large framerate boost combined with the steep power reduction gives AMD a big lead here. Again, whether you’re talking outright efficiency or environmental stewardship and absolute power consumption, the answer to both of these would be AMD as the most efficient. Intel cannot fight on these grounds, despite improvements over its own prior architecture.

Efficiency: Stellaris

Stellaris is up.

In this one, we have the 265K at 1.5 simulations per watt-hour, about the same as the 5800X, especially considering rounding. 

If we look for a performance-normalized comparison, the closest would be Intel’s own 14700K. The uplift over the predecessor is 50%. AMD’s 9600X is somewhat close in performance as well, yet holds an advantage at 1.7 simulations per watt-hour.

Efficiency: Starfield

We didn’t capture power data for the 245K in Starfield, but we have the 265K and 285K.

The 265K here pulled 144W, putting it around the same as the 285K. Because the performance declines and the power is the same, the efficiency is worse than the 285K once again. The 285K appears to be a better bin in combination with higher efficiency.

The 265K ends up about the same as the 14600K. Fortunately, it improves on the 14700K’s 0.6 FPS/W result. The 14900K has a lower power consumption than the 14700K as a result of an external bottleneck limiting CPU utilization and also the binning. It can’t be fully leveraged. The 285K and 265K are both fully engaged though.

Intel 265K Gaming Benchmarks

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Dragon’s Dogma 2

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is up. In this one, the 265K ran at 99 FPS AVG, which has it 4.6% ahead of the 245K and means the 285K is about 4-5 FPS ahead of the 265K. The 14700K leads the 265K by 8.6%, with the 13700K about the same. The AMD 7800X3D is ahead by 11%, with the cheaper 5700X3D also ahead of the 265K while running on an older, cheaper platform.

The 265K is worse value than even the 245K in this particular game, and we wouldn’t recommend that one, either. Its low performance here is fine, with no particularly meaningful deviation from the expectation, but overall, the 265K is just not impressive in this test even against its already unimpressive brethren of the same 200 Series. Or Series 2. Or whatever Intel is calling it.

F1 24 - 1080p

F1 24 is up now. In the very least, the gap is wider against the 245K, now with a 7.5% uplift in framerate. Lows increased proportionally with the average.

This positions the 265K as equivalent to the AMD 7700X and a bit ahead of the 7700 (watch our review) and 7900 non-X parts. The 7900X is functionally tied with the 265K, making it both performance and price matched in this test -- at least, at the prices right around launch.

The 285K’s 343.5 FPS AVG has it just 4% ahead of the 265K. It wouldn’t be worth buying the $630 285K regardless, and especially not for gaming, but it’s especially not worth it here. Even the 265K makes more sense, and it still doesn’t make a ton of sense.

The 5700X3D (read our review) further establishes that storyline with its 355 FPS result, led further by the once-upon-a-time cheaper 5600X3D (when it was briefly available at Micro Center). That one has a lead because its frequency is higher.

F1 24 - 1440p

At 1440p, we see some drop in performance from the resolution change, but a similar hierarchy overall. The 265K ends up sandwiched between the 14600K and 13600K as we bounce off of occasional framerate limits. The entire top of the chart is brushing against external bottlenecks at least occasionally, so let’s move on.

FFXIV Dawntrail - 1080p

Final Fantasy 14: Dawntrail is up now, first at 1080p.

AMD holds a domineering lead over this chart and keeps a stranglehold on the top 3 entries, with 4th held closely against the 14900K with APO on. 

The 265K landed at 236 FPS AVG here, which has the 12900K ahead of it by 4%. The R9 7900 non-X also leads, up at 253FPS AVG and holding an advantage of 7.4%. Even the 7600X leads. The 14700K’s 287 FPS AVG result has it 21.7% ahead of the 265K, establishing, without a doubt, that the 265K has gotten thoroughly “wrekt” in this test against its predecessor. The 285K also did poorly in this game; in fact, this is one of the games Intel openly stated it has regressive performance in, and we can definitely confirm that. Almost anything else makes more sense than Arrow Lake in this benchmark.

Baldur’s Gate 3

Baldur’s Gate 3 had the 265K at 96 FPS AVG, which ties it almost perfectly with the 12900K. That includes tying the 1% lows, with 0.1% close to the usual wider error range. The 265K only leads the 245K by a few FPS on average, rendering it relatively uninteresting. The 245K was already terrible value against alternatives here, and that includes not just the clearly dominant X3D CPUs -- where we have 4, and soon to be 5, topping the chart -- but also Intel’s own prior CPUs. The 14700K leads the 265K by 6%, and for perspective, the 7800X3D leads it by 32%. The 5800X3D (watch our review) isn’t far below that, at 120 FPS AVG. The 5700X3D, which is around $200 to $230 lately (but has been cheaper), has an advantage over the 265K of 16.4%.

For the 265K, we’re just not seeing it in this one.

Stellaris Simulation Time

Stellaris is up now. This one uses a late game save file and tests for simulation time rather than framerate. Players of 4X games are likely aware of how bogged-down the CPU can get in late game stages. 

The 265K required an average of 33.9 seconds for its simulation. The 13900K averaged 33.5 seconds, with the 7700 non-X at 34.2. The 14700K predecessor is indistinguishable from the 14900K (read our review) here, with both exhibiting a 2% simulation time reduction from the 265K.

The 9600X is also improved, with a simulation time reduction of 1.2 seconds. Zen 5 generally does well in this test, shown also with the 9700X at the top.

The 285K with our default settings did better in this one relative to the 14 series than other tests, but was still beaten by AMD’s 7800X3D and 9700X.

Rainbow Six Siege

Rainbow Six Siege is up now. In this test, the 265K ran at 519 FPS AVG. We observed that the 285K had frametime pacing issues in this game as compared to the 14 series, which persist here. Our 285K review remarked that we think this may be related to specific optimizations made by the Rainbow Six team, as APO’s benefit has been reduced to effectively nothing.

By average FPS, the 265K is behind the 5700X3D, and further behind the higher clocked 5600X3D. Both of these AMD CPUs have better 0.1% lows; however, the 14600K has far superior 0.1% lows than all 3 of these and is functionally tied in average FPS with the 265K. It’s within error for average, but better in low performance. The same goes for the 13600K, embarrassingly for the 265K.

Here’s how it stacks up: The 7800X3D leads the 265K by 20%, the 9600X leads it by 19%, the 14900K with APO off by 13%, and the 285K with APO off by 12%. Even the 7900X (read our review) leads here, and that’s not explicitly been branded as a gaming part, yet competes in both production workloads and price.

Starfield

Starfield is up now. This one has the 265K at 134 FPS AVG, just ahead of the 5800X3D and behind the 13700K (watch our review) and 14700K. These two CPUs (and the 14900K) are all bouncing off of another limit, and the 285K with DDR5-8600 makes it appear as if that limit is memory. This is also reinforced by the cache-boosted 7800X3D propelling to the top here.

The 265K has an improvement on the 245K’s average FPS of 120.5 of 11%. It also leads the 5700X3D here by 13%.

AMD has historically had issues with Starfield, despite being the GPU sponsor for the game. The 9600X is less competitive in this gaming test than some of the others, down at 101 FPS AVG.

265K Production Benchmarks

Time to move on to production benchmarks. This testing will look at a shortened list of workstation applications.

Blender

Blender is up now for a 3D rendering benchmark.

In this one, the 265K required 8.7 minutes to complete the render. That has it near the 14900K. Against the 14700K, the 265K also benefits from a render time reduction of 8%, meaning 8% less time required to complete the work. The reduction in time required against the 13700K is 20%, down from almost 11 minutes. AMD’s 7950X in ECO mode leads the 265K with an 8% reduction in render time needed, with the non-ECO result at 7.4 minutes and in line behind the 285K. 

The 265K beats the 7900X, which at least helps its positioning against similarly priced AMD competition. That isn’t always the case.

The 265K also benefits from a 31% reduction in render time requirement against the 245K.

7-Zip Compression

7-Zip Compression is up now. In this test, the 265K ran at 158K MIPS, which puts it roughly tied with AMD’s R9 7900X and behind the 9900X. The 265K improves on the 245K by 29% in throughput, with the 285K leading the 265K by 8%. This is a test where we saw a large improvement from the memory upgrade in our 285K test with DDR5-8600. We might revisit that topic if we can find some time.

The 9900X (read our review) is about 6% more expensive than the 265K right now and performs about 3.5% better. The 14700K is cheaper than the 265K, but uses more power to score 8% better. The 7950X (watch our review) is one of the more interesting CPUs still, but it depends heavily on price. It’s listed at $500 as we write this, or about 24% more than the $405 listing for the 265K on Newegg. The 7950X performs 18% better without Eco Mode on and similarly with it enabled.

7-Zip Decompression

In Decompression, the 265K ran at 168K MIPS and landed just behind the two-generation-old 13700K. The refreshed version of that, the 14700K, is up at 195K MIPS, landing the 14700K ahead of both the 285K and the 265K. The 285K only topples it when upgraded with faster memory, but of course, giving the same treatment to the 14700K would also leapfrog it ahead.

The 14700K leads the 265K by 15.7%. The 265K leads AMD’s 7700X by 19%. X3D doesn’t really help here, so the 7800X3D and 5700X3D fall down the stack comparatively, despite strong gaming performance and really good efficiency.

AMD’s production-oriented 7900X leads the 265K by a staggering 24%, with the 9900X leading by 27%. The 7900X is currently the same price as the 265K, making it a better value in this comparison.

Adobe Premiere

Adobe Premiere is up next, tested with the Puget suite.

In this one, the 265K scored 10718 points in aggregate. Puget Systems takes the intraframe score, RAW score, GPU effective, and other filter and editing testing into consideration for this score.

The score has it roughly tied with the eco mode 7950X and 9900X. Its advantage over the 7900X is at least a little more, at 8%. The 7900 (watch our review) scored similarly. The 265K also leads the 13700K by 1%, so basically error. The 14700K leads the 265K by 2.4%.

The 285K did well in this particular test and managed to outrank the 14900K, leading the 265K by 5.8%.

Intel 265K Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

The 265K is, in several cases, less efficient than our 285K. That’s not unheard of: The 285K is a higher performer, which benefits the efficiency, and the power budget is the same. Still, it’s improved over the 14700K. Intel has retained that much, but as we said before, in all comparisons we run, AMD is more efficient still.

So that wraps-up that side of things.

It’s clear once again that the 265K is surrounded by good options on all sides. The 285K is exceptionally bad value for gaming users, with worse performance than you’d get on a $230 5700X3D or $480 7800X3D and also a far higher cost. In non-gaming uses, there are some limited scenarios where you could make an argument for the 285K, but they are relatively rare among our test suite.

The 245K made even less sense: Production use cases effectively vanish as an argument, as the part is majority targeted at gaming users. In gaming, it gets absolutely crushed by not only AMD’s $100 cheaper 5700X3D (which itself would give you $100 more budget to either keep or throw at a GPU), but also by Intel’s own predecessors that are now cheaper or the same price.

The 265K suffers from a bit of both: The cost goes up by $70-$90, and yet the performance doesn’t scale anywhere close to linearly in gaming. The production performance is better, and in that situation almost solely, the 265K can make some stronger arguments for itself. It can outmatch its closest price competitors from AMD at times, so that’s at least good for the 265K. It’s just not a sweeping victory and Intel’s total platform cost is also questionable, especially with the potentially short lifespan of this one.

That’ll wrap our reviews of these for now. We’ll have more Arrow Lake content, but as far as the core part reviews, they’re done until Intel launches more. We wanted to keep this one concise.


RIP Intel: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 7800X3D, 285K, 14900K, & More

7 novembre 2024 à 22:58
RIP Intel: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 7800X3D, 285K, 14900K, & Morejimmy_thang November 7, 2024

We test the 9800X3D’s frequency, thermals, gaming performance, efficiency, and more

The Highlights

  • The 9800X3D is a follow up to the 7800X3D but runs on Zen 5 and changes the location of its cache within its die stack
  • It’s not the most competitive CPU when it comes to production workloads
  • The 9800X3D is the new gaming king CPU
  • Original MSRP: $480
  • Release Date: November 7, 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Buy a GN 4-Pack of PC-themed 3D Coasters! These high-quality, durable, flexible coasters ship in a pack of 4, each with a fully custom design made by GN's team. You'll get a motherboard-themed coaster with debug display & reset buttons, a SATA SSD with to-scale connectors, RAM sticks, and a GN logo. These fund our web work! Buy here.

Intro

AMD’s 9800X3D review embargo lifts today. The 9800X3D is a Zen 5 CPU with extra cache, but with critical changes to the location of the cache within the die stack. 
As we talked about in a separate technical video, the 9800X3D has shifted the extra cache under the core complex, leading to more direct contact from the CPU cores to the IHS lid underside. AMD has also eliminated some of its bonding layers within the CPU, which reduces insulation further, and it has removed the structural silicon that leveled the top of the cache die to better mate the IHS in prior X3D designs. That’s because the extra cache die and the core complex die are now the same physical dimensions.

Editor's note: This was originally published on November 6, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing
Patrick Lathan

Mike Gaglione

Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Camera

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


The 9800X3D is a $480 MSRP part for the AM5 platform. Let’s get into the review.

AMD 9800X3D Overview & Pricing

The only way AMD could screw up this launch would be with the price, so let’s start with a price comparison and update. This was all collected in the days leading up to review publication.

CPU Price Comparison | GamersNexus | Early November, 2024

Newegg PriceAmazon Price
AMD 9800X3D (MSRP $480)
AMD 9950X$585$600
AMD 9900X$430$383
AMD 9700X$327$325
AMD 7950X3D$598 (OOS)$598
AMD 7950X$493$487
AMD 7900X$396$319
AMD 7900$358$368
AMD 7800X3D$449 (OOS)$476
AMD 5700X3D$229$187
Intel 285K$630 (OOS)NFS / OOS
Intel 265K$400$400
Intel 245K$320$320
Intel 14900K$440$440
Intel 14700K$347$347
Intel 13900KNFS / OOS$445
Intel 13700KNFS / OOS$343
Intel 12900K$310$277

The 9800X3D’s MSRP is $480. It’s not listed as we write this.

Assuming that price is accurate, some of its direct neighbors and competitors include the others on this list. The 7800X3D is about $476 now and is out of stock with a listed former price of $450 on Newegg. The 7800X3D (watch our review) has previously been as low as $300 to $330, with drops in August to around $360. Lately, its price has stabilized higher. We have a policy of making comparisons against pricing at the time of the review, so we’ll use the $476-$480 figure today.

The 5700X3D is priced at $187 to $230. The 7950X (watch our review) is a similar price to the 9800X3D, landing at about $500. That’d be one to pay attention to for non-gaming workloads.

Intel’s competition includes the 285K, to the extent you can even call it “competition,” seeing as it barely competes with Intel’s own parts on value. The 285K(read our review) is $630 where it can be found, and you shouldn’t buy it, with the 265K(watch our review) at $400. The prior generation parts, like the 14900K, have fallen in price lately. That’s at $440, with the 14700K at $347.

We have a lot to get through, so let’s get into the benchmarks. We’ll have frequency, gaming, efficiency, and production tests.

AMD 9800X3D Frequency Comparison

AMD 9800X3D All-Core Frequency Comparison

We’ll start with a comparison of frequency against the 7800X3D. This will help explain the performance differences we’re going to see today.

In an all-core workload with Blender, we observed the 9800X3D maintaining an average all-core frequency at a fixed 5225 MHz without any dropping. The stability and flatness of this frequency is a result of the higher power limit, which is allowing the core all the power it needs to maintain this boost.

The 7800X3D averaged between 4800 and 4890 MHz during the original review cycle for this same test. It’s significantly lower and less fixed, shown by the line’s variability.

AMD 9800X3D Single-Core Frequency Comparison

In a single-thread comparison with Cinebench, the 9800X3D also held a maximum single-core boost of 5225 MHz throughout the duration of the test. The 7800X3D held at 5050 MHz in the same test as a maximum single-core frequency.

Between these two tests, the 9800X3D holds a significant frequency advantage over its predecessor in both all-core and single-core loads.

VID Comparison

We also ran a voltage ID comparison just with software. In Blender, the 9800X3D held a VID of 1.18V on average, with the 7800X3D at about 1.07V. The 7800X3D is power limited and also running at lower clocks, which combine to yield a lower VID.

AMD 9800X3D Thermal Benchmark

Using the same Blender all-core workload, we measured a Tdie CPU temperature of approximately 77 degrees Celsius in a 21-degree Celsius environment when using a 360mm Liquid Freezer II at 100% pump and fan speeds. CPU die average was similar.

The L3 cache plotted just over 50 degrees Celsius, with the CPU IOD temperatures around 41 degrees with hotspot readings at about 50 degrees.

The 9800X3D cannot be directly compared to the 7800X3D thermally by using internal sensors picked up by software. It would be erroneous without accounting for the changes AMD has made in its sensors. The AMD temperature sensors have been relocated within the silicon and moved to cooler locations to prevent clock dropping too early. We talked about this in our 9700X review and provided a controlled comparison so you can better understand why the sensor readout isn't directly comparable between the architectures.

9700X vs. 9800X3D Thermals

It can be directly compared to the 9700X, though. The 9700X pulls less power in this test and so will be cooler, but it’ll still help to compare. The 9700X (read our review) ran a Tdie of about 52 degrees Celsius under the same test conditions and with the same cooler.

With PBO maxed-out on the 9700X, we saw about a 13W higher power draw than the 9800X3D stock. This landed the 9700X at about 86 degrees Celsius. It isn’t perfectly comparable because the power isn’t exactly matched and we ultimately don’t have an easy way to directly compare the 7800X3D’s thermals from the cache change without solutions that require more time than AMD gives in a review cycle. Even still, the key takeaway is that the 9800X3D is not burning the cores at excessive temperatures even with the stacked solution.

AMD 9800X3D Gaming Benchmarks

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Let’s get into gaming benchmarks.

Stellaris Simulation Time

Stellaris is a 4X game that we test for simulation time rather than framerate. Lower is better, with the result measured in seconds.

Zen 5 has already shown advantages in this test, with the 9700X previously scoring the new top rank in the benchmark and outmatching all prior CPUs. Core count has limited benefit in this beyond 8 cores for AMD, but IPC and clocks seem to matter.

The 9800X3D absolutely crushes the prior top result, with a 25.8-second result against the 9700X’s already barrier-breaking 30.3-second result. This previously appeared to be a limitation of the memory, which we can see reinforced by the 31.1-second 285K result at DDR5-8600 vs. the stock result at 32.5. 

The original X3D CPU with the 5800X3D (watch our review) posted a 35.4-second result against the 40.7 result of the 5800X, so we’re seeing a repeat of that era, which was also impressive. 

The 9800X3D also reduces the 7800X3D’s simulation time by 17.6%.

Intel’s best showing is the 285K with faster memory, but that’s not a like-for-like comparison as we could boost memory on AMD also. The 285K stock required 32.5 seconds to complete the simulation, meaning the 9800X3D reduces time required by 21%. The 7950X3D shows why we haven’t retested it, underperforming overall for reasons explained in our review of the part. Even with the new data, it underperforms vs. the 7800X3D.

The 14900K and 14700K are effectively tied and within error of each other, and removing any limits wouldn’t change that much.

This is a great showing for the 9800X3D.

Dragon’s Dogma 2

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is up now, another of our 2024 titles. This game, even with all its updates to improve CPU performance, is still heavy on CPUs. The 9800X3D distances itself from the 7800X3D with a 16.2% uplift, gaining on the original 111 FPS AVG to an impressive 129 FPS AVG. We reran this one multiple times to ensure the result was right, but it ended up not even being our biggest gain in the suite.

The gain on the 14900K (read our review)was about 17%, up from 109.6 FPS AVG. The same is true of the prior 5800X3D. Over the 285K, we saw a 23% uplift. 

Frametimes were improved in this game, but not as much as we saw in some other games. The improvement is more or less proportional to the average framerate, so there is no particularly impressive divergence in lows. In other words, it tracks with what we’d expect of a 129 FPS AVG.

FFXIV Dawntrail - 1080p

Final Fantasy 14: Dawntrail is up now, released this year. The 9800X3D breaks the previous upper bound of the chart. 

Let’s run through the flagships: The 9800X3D CPU ran at 373 FPS AVG, which has it at 5.6% higher framerate than the 7800X3D while costing the same as the current 7800X3D pricing at time of writing. The 14900K ran at 310.3 FPS AVG, giving the 9800X3D a massive lead of 20.2%. This is one of the games where the new Arrow Lake CPUs are hugely regressive and impressively bad value, so the 285K’s 270 FPS AVG gives the 9800X3D an overwhelming lead of 38.3% higher average framerate. As for the 5800X3D, the lead is 11.8% over the prior AMD gaming flagship’s 334 FPS AVG.

For some anchors to older parts: The R7 2700 (read our revisit) and 2600 (read our revisit) were around 145 to 150 FPS AVG, with the 2600 benefiting from a frequency advantage. The 3600 (read our review) was at 170 FPS AVG. The Intel 12100F is down at 186 FPS.

FFXIV Dawntrail Frametimes

For frametimes, we observed overall similar frame-to-frame intervals for the 9800X3D and 7800X3D. Typically, they oscillate between 2ms and 4ms intervals, where 16.667ms would be 60 FPS. The spikes are what matter: The 9800X3D in this title has slightly shorter excursions from the mean than the 7800X3D. The difference is hardly perceptible, but on a technicality, the 9800X3D does deliver more consistent frametimes in this title.

Baldur’s Gate 3

Baldur’s Gate 3 from 2023 is up next. We want to caveat this one with a disclaimer: We saw a larger than typical gain in the 9800X3D versus the 7800X3D for this. After we spent a day troubleshooting it, we have come to the conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest any testing errors or uncharacteristic issues caused by the test or game itself, so we’re going to run the data because it’s interesting. We’d pull it if we had any substantiated concerns. We checked with two other reviewers in peer review, ran HWINFO logging, reran the tests multiple times on both the 9800X3D and 7800X3D, and came to the same conclusions.

The game has the 9800X3D way up at 160 FPS AVG, leading the 7800X3D by an obscene 26.9%. The 7800X3D in both our shown dataset and our unshown additional tests have it in the 124-126 FPS range. This was one of the games we double-checked and got the same results each time.

The 14900K ran at 105 FPS AVG, giving the 9800X3D a crushing advantage of 53.2%; the 7800X3D already had a lead over the 14900K of around 21%, depending on which data set we looked at. 

The 9800X3D leads the 285K’s 100 FPS AVG by 60%. Against the 5800X3D, we’re seeing a boost of 33.3% from the prior 120 FPS AVG.

Baldur’s Gate 3 Frametimes

Baldur’s Gate 3 frametimes for the 9800X3D also improved over the 7800X3D, and this time, it wasn’t just proportional to the average uplift. Here, you can see the 9800X3D maintained a tighter frame-to-frame interval with reduced amplitude of excursions from any given prior frame.

Baldur’s Gate 3 Monitoring

Because this was such an outlier, we ran HWINFO logging against the test as a separate run. 

In this test, the 9800X3D average all-core frequency was about 5225 MHz, which is impressive for all-core. We think this is why the performance is so disproportionately good: There’s a much higher power budget, so we’re not trimming the frequency peaks, and the power consumption itself overall isn’t excessive in this game. The two combine for full boosting.

Plotting the 7800X3D, we see a much spikier, less predictable average all-core frequency that bounces between 4500 MHz and about 5050 MHz under load. The highest single-core frequency is also variable. This is contributing to the behaviors discovered in this test. 

Rainbow Six Siege

In Rainbow Six Siege, the 9800X3D landed at 643 FPS AVG and led the 7800X3D’s 622 FPS result by 3.4%. There are limited gains to be found in a game already over 600 FPS. We’d have to re-evaluate this with whatever flagship NVIDIA puts out next to try and find the true CPU ceiling. It at least gives perspective that you may not see big differences in heavily bound scenarios.

The 14900K ran at 586 FPS AVG here, so the 9800X3D has a 10% improvement. The new X3D part is also about 10% over the 285K. Compared to the 5800X3D, the 9800X3D gains 12% in AVG FPS.

We removed some other CPUs from this one to make space for APO on results. As a reminder, APO is now doing little for performance in any of our tests. This includes Rainbow Six, which previously saw larger impact. The 14900K is about 10 FPS different with APO on. The 285K saw change only within error and run-to-run variance so it’s irrelevant.

Starfield

Starfield is up now, a 2023 title.

In this game, the 9800X3D leads the 7800X3D by 16%, impressing once again generationally. The new result is 169 FPS AVG to the 145 FPS of the 7800X3D.

The 14900K is led by 24.6% with its 135 FPS result. The new 285K did a little better than the 14900K in this game, at 143 FPS AVG. That’s still an 18% higher average framerate for the 9800X3D. Even with the DDR5-8600 memory in Gear 2 with the 285K, it still caps-out at 152 FPS AVG. That was a great result, but the 9800X3D puts things into a new perspective.

Against the prior AMD 5800X3D flagship and its 128 FPS result, the new 9800X3D has a 31.4% uplift.

Some quick reference older parts include the 2600 at 59 FPS AVG, the 2700 at 66, the 3600 at 70, and the 12100F at 71 FPS.

F1 24 - 1080p

F1 24 is another of the games with a lower boost over the 7800X3D. The 9800X3D ran at 464 FPS AVG here, a 5.8% improvement on the 438 FPS result of the 7800X3D. The 14900K ran at 385 FPS AVG, so that’s about a 21% uplift for the 9800X3D. The 285K was massively regressive in this game and was down at 344 FPS, giving the 9800X3D a 35% advantage. 

Against AMD’s flagship from the 5000 era, the lead is 18.6% over the 391 FPS result of the 5800X3D.

Total Warhammer 3

Total War: Warhammer 3 is one of the older games we test, but is important for perspective on GPU and memory bottlenecks.

The 9800X3D ran at 490 FPS AVG, which is within error of the 7800X3D. These two are bound by the same bottleneck, which is the GPU in this situation.

There’s only a 5% lead over the 14900K due to the same limitation, with an 8% advantage over the regressive 285K. The 5800X3D ran at 457 FPS AVG, so a 7% gain for the 9800X3D. The 14600K with its recent rerun we ran landed it up alongside the 14700K (read our review), with both encountering the same bottleneck as the 13700K and the 7800X3D. Sometimes people ask why a 13700K could be better than a 14700K. It isn’t: It’s just that we can’t actually see unbound scaling, limiting the usefulness of this test. 

This game has 0.1% low issues with the i9 CPUs due to their thread count. We don’t test community FPS mods, so it’s up to the devs to fix this.

Efficiency Testing

We’ll now get into efficiency testing, then production benchmarks. This testing looks at CPU performance per Watt, typically presented as FPS/W for games (which would be frames per joule). We’ll start with MIPS/W for 7-Zip, though.

These tests look at a simple formula of the power in Watts drawn versus the performance of the task. Adjusting either of the two parameters has an impact on results.

Efficiency: 7-Zip Compression

In 7-Zip compression, the 9800X3D computed to 1298 MIPS/W, or millions of instructions per joule, putting it barely ahead of the 5700X3D. The increased power consumption of the 9800X3D reduces its efficiency as compared to the lower power 9700X, at 81.6W to 98.4W. The 9700X scored 1389 MIPS/W.

The 9800X3D ends up relatively efficient in compression, but less efficient than the prior 7800X3D. The 7800X3D was not a higher performer, but because this is a calculation of both power and performance, either one can help to counterbalance a deficit in the other.

Meanwhile, Intel’s 285K measured at 1051 MIPS/W, which is improved upon its prior efficiency performance in the 14900K, which was way down at 672 MIPS/W. That’s with the EPS12V and ATX12V line measured on the 285K. The AMD CPUs do not pull from ATX12V in any meaningful way in our testing. The PCIe slot is isolated, as are fans and RGB LEDs. 5V from I/O is also isolated. This means there is some overhead in ATX12V on Intel from the RAM and other small devices, but nowhere near enough to meaningfully move that needle closer to AMD.

Efficiency: 7-Zip Decompression

Decompression efficiency is up now.

In this one, the 9800X3D ends up at 1482 MIPS/W, just under the 5600X (which is benefitted by its 60W power reading) and above the 7950X at 183W. The 7950X in ECO mode is more efficient for its trade outperformance, down to 133W and now at 1936 MIPS/W. The 7950X3D boosts higher, mostly because its power draw drops even more -- now at 124W for 16 cores. The 7950X could also be limited to 124W and would achieve a similar score.

The 7800X3D is more efficient than the 9800X3D due to its lower power consumption, but its performance is also lower. The 9800X3D trades efficiency for more boosting headroom. This benefits it in the gaming tests we saw earlier, despite costing more power.

Intel’s closest CPU is the 285K toward the bottom of the chart, at 162W in the same test and 1194 MIPS/W.

Efficiency: Baldur’s Gate 3

Moving on to games, we’ll start with Baldur’s Gate 3.

Baldur’s Gate 3 positions the 9800X3D as the new king of efficiency in the test, with a 2.4 FPS/W result that has it just above the 2.3 FPS/W result of the 7800X3D. The 7800X3D utilizes about 13W lower power as averaged, resulting in a smaller gap than we might otherwise see. The 9800X3D at least maintains AMD’s trend of X3D parts becoming new efficiency leaders in gaming.

Intel’s CPUs first appear with the 245K at 1.3 FPS/W. The 285K is below that, at 1.1 FPS/W, followed by Intel’s last generation parts.

Efficiency: Starfield

Starfield efficiency is up now.

The 9800X3D is almost at the top, but not quite. Its performance gains were relatively high in this game, but the power consumption increased significantly. The 9800X3D averaged at 98.7W, with the 7800X3D at 69W. This is what leads the 7800X3D to a victory in this test, despite the performance uplift. AMD has lost efficiency here.

Intel’s CPUs first appear at the 285K, down at 1 FPS/W. The 14900K is at about 0.7 FPS/W.

Efficiency: Stellaris

Stellaris is something of a repeat of that: The 9800X3D pulled 54W on average, leading it to a 2.6 simulations per Watt-hour score. The 7800X3D ended up at 2.7, or about a 4% advantage in efficiency despite a reduction in performance compared to the 9800X3D. The 12W lower power leads to this discrepancy.

Intel’s closest part is the 245K at 1.9 simulations per Watt-hour, with the 285K at 1.5.

Efficiency: Final Fantasy XIV

Final Fantasy 14 is last for efficiency comparisons in gaming.

For this one, the 9800X3D ranked at 7 FPS/W, which has it below the 5700X3D (read our review) and 7800X3D. The CPU pulls just under 54W on average, while the 7800X3D ran at about 43W and the 5700X3D ran at an impressive average of just 39W. Despite higher performance, the higher power tips the scale away from the extreme efficiency we’ve seen in previous X3D parts.

It’s still relatively high in the ranks, above everything Intel and above AMD’s non-X3D parts, but it’s clear that AMD favored an increase in power for an increase in performance as it tries to balance between.

AMD 9800X3D Production Benchmarks

Production benchmarks are next. These tests look at a suite of applications outside of gaming. The 9800X3D is ultimately a gaming CPU. Our non-gaming tests do not regularly show advantages for extra cache.

Blender

Blender is up first for a 3D rendering pass of our intro animation.

The 9800X3D completed the frame render in 12.5 minutes, about tied with the Intel 245K (read our review). Although we don’t recommend the part, the 245K is cheaper at $320. AMD’s 9800X3D manages to at least outperform the 9700X, with an atypical render time reduction of 16%. It’s atypical because prior X3D parts do not necessarily see such gains, such as the 7800X3D at 15.9 minutes to the better results from both the 7700 (watch our review)and 7700X. The reason for the atypical gain is largely the power budget, where the 9800X3D has more power available out-of-box to clock up.

The 13700K also requires less time. The 9800X3D is improved, which is better than we’ve seen in past X3D parts in this test, but there are still far better performers and value options from Intel and AMD alike if applications similar to this test are your daily use case.

7-Zip Compression

7-Zip can be one of the more sensitive to cache, but it depends on whether it’s compression or decompression.

In compression testing, the 9800X3D completed 128K MIPS, which puts it within error of the 14600K and 13600K (watch our review). It at least posts a 13% jump over the more power-constrained 9700X. The lead over the 7800X3D is similar. 7950X3D (watch our review) performance is about the same as the 7950X and within about 1%. 

Intel’s 285K has a large lead here, up at 170K MIPS with DDR5-6000. The gain in our DDR5-8600 test was massive in this benchmark, putting it at nearly 202K MIPS. The 9950X approaches that result, meaning an upgrade to its memory as well would leapfrog the 285K.

7-Zip Decompression

Decompression has the 9800X3D at 146K MIPS. It’s between the 12900K and 7700X (watch our review). The 9700X was regressive in this test against both the 7700X and the more like-for-like power 7700.

The 9800X3D leads the 7800X3D by 10.2% and the 9700X by similar.

Again though, if you’re heavily represented by this test, you’d be better off with a different CPU. The 16-core AMD CPUs lead this chart and set that example. The 7950X has been below $500 lately, so it’d be a price comparable alternative to the 9800X3D that’s more suited to this.

Chromium Compile

Chromium compile is up now. 

The 9800X3D requires 130 minutes to complete the compile with our settings, putting it at the same level as the 14600K (read our review) and Intel 245K. The 7900 non-X (read our review)leads the 9800X3D here and benefits from the extra threads.

The 9800X3D also benefits from an 18% reduction in time requirement against the 7800X3D’s 160-minute result. Likewise, it leads the 149-minute result of the 9700X. Still, the 12900K, 13700K (watch our review), and 285K are all advantaged over the 9800X3D, as are AMD’s own 9950X and 9900X (read our review)parts.

Adobe Premiere

Adobe Premiere testing is done with the Puget Suite.

This testing lands the 9800X3D at 10,050 points in aggregate for the extended test, which includes RAW, intraframe, and effects performance. The result is between the 13700K and 9900X above it and 12900K (watch our review) and 7900X below it. 

The 9800X3D does actually improve on both the 9700X and 7800X3D, though, both of which are around 9100 points in aggregate.

Intel’s 265K outperforms the 9800X3D by 6.6%, with the 7950X (watch our review) a bit above that. The 285K does impressively well in this specific test, with the 14900K alongside it.

Adobe Photoshop

Photoshop also uses the Puget Suite.

The 9800X3D does impressively well in this benchmark, with its averaged score landing ahead of the 9950X (read our review) and 9700X alike. The 7800X3D’s 10,162 point result gives the 9800X3D a lead of 17%.

AMD does well in this specific Photoshop test right now. Intel’s first CPUs show up way down the chart, at around the 7600X (watch our review)and 7900 levels of performance with the 14900K and 14700K. The 285K does about the same as the 13700K here.

This is one where the 9800X3D manages to boost itself even in a non-gaming scenario, benefitted by the extra power available for clock boosting as compared to the 9700X.

Value Comparisons (USD/FPS)

This chart is an experiment. We don’t want you to place too much usefulness in this particular chart because it is experimental, but we also can’t try new things if we always try to perfect them first.

This chart shows the delta in USD per FPS at various simulated prices for the 7800X3D. The 9800X3D is fixed at $480 in all of these simulations, with the 7800X3D variable based on the number you see in the chart legend on the right. A negative value means that the 9800X3D is that amount cheaper per FPS than the 7800X3D, while a positive value means the 9800X3D is that amount more expensive per FPS than the 7800X3D.

At near price parity, the 9800X3D has significant value advantages in Dragon’s Dogma 2, Baldur’s Gate 3, Starfield, and even Phantom Liberty. Value is functionally the same in F1, Rainbow Six, and Final Fantasy. 

It isn’t until a $420 price for the 7800X3D that the Starfield value gains are mostly eliminated. At $400 7800X3D versus $480 9800X3D, the 7800X3D starts to make a ton of sense as a better value, assuming that’s how you shop. 

Efficiency vs. Performance Change

This is also an experimental chart. 

In this one, we’re showing the percent increase in power consumption for the application in the left axis vs. the percent increase in performance. The best result would be a larger performance increase than the power increase by percent, although linearity is also good.

In Baldur’s Gate and Stellaris, with the latter converted to simulations per hour so that higher is better, the percent performance increase is either improved or nearly linear with the percent power increase. In Starfield, the performance increase costs a substantial power increase. We saw the same in Phantom Liberty. These are our two most power-hungry games in the suite and fully leverage the power budget. 7-Zip also saw this swing. Dawntrail is bottlenecked, so can’t reliably be used. Even limited though, power is higher.

AMD might be past the most efficient point in the curve, but results like Stellaris support that it is still relatively balanced. 

AMD 9800X3D Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Intel’s 285K was already lowered into its grave, but the 9800X3D just contributed a significant aqueous mixture of hydroxide, chloride, potassium, and about 95% water onto it. After this impromptu hydrolysis reaction, there aren’t many compelling reasons to pick one up.

To recap some key points quickly:

The 9800X3D is definitely the new gaming king, and this time, it’s priced similarly to the 7800X3D. The original launch price of the 7800X3D was $450. Even at that price, the 9800X3D is a worthwhile improvement and doesn’t feel like stagnation. 

There are some big boosts to performance over the 7800X3D: Stellaris saw the 9800X3D break through a glass ceiling and propel to new heights against the already-dominant 7800X3D; Starfield saw about a 16% improvement; Dragon’s Dogma 2 saw a 16% uplift, also breaking through what seemed like a ceiling; Baldur’s Gate 3 had a 26-27% improvement, which was such a big swing that we re-ran the tests on both CPUs, collected HWINFO logs during execution, and closely inspected the graphics to ensure equal renders. We also checked with another reviewer who saw a 17% uplift in the game while testing in a different area and under different settings, which is close enough when considering those changes.

Even without that, the CPU is just overall competitive in gaming.

For efficiency, the 9800X3D doesn’t manage to hold onto AMD’s multi-generation history of its new X3D CPU becoming the most efficient in our charts. The CPU is still good, and we’d still classify it as “efficient” overall when considering everything else on the charts.

Production isn’t as competitive as other parts, so if you’re not building a gaming-first system, you should just buy a different CPU. But it’s good enough for a mix of work and high-end gaming, and likewise, it uncharacteristically improves upon the 9700X. We haven’t always seen this with X3D, as frequency is typically sacrificed for power as a result of the thermal limiters imposed by the heat sandwich AMD previously had with the stack.

Intel isn’t anywhere close on the gaming charts. It isn’t only beaten, its new 285K flagship -- which is, for some completely insane reason, $630 -- is sometimes beaten by 40-60%. Typically, we’re seeing 25-35% when unbound by the GPU. 

Intel does better in the production benchmarks, but we still wouldn’t recommend the Ultra 200 series broadly. The 9950X and 7950X remain competitive, with the 14900K and 14700K also somewhat competitive here. There are some very limited use cases, such as the buzzworded “creation” scenarios, where the 285K makes some sense. But Intel is marketing the 285K on efficiency, and AMD is more efficient in every test we’ve run.

The entire last few months have been wild: We watched AMD open it up with Zen 5, where it drunkenly fumbled the football back 5 yards on the field. Intel then picked up the ball and proceeded to run towards its own goal, at which point it tripped over its shoe laces that came unglued. AMD then picked the ball up and walked it the rest of the way with the 9800X3D.

And somehow, it worked. AMD was set up for a slam dunk on this launch with both its own and Intel’s fumbles, and by under-marketing the performance, it was in a position where only the price could screw the launch.

This launch was also the most organized out of the last several months, including AMD’s own Zen 5 launch. An organized launch is important: With about 2 weeks of testing time rather than the few days we’ve had, plus a mature platform without mid-testing reworks, it is clear that AMD really sat down and planned the launch rather than shoving it out the door in a panic to respond to something else. This gives us some additional confidence that there won’t be any unexpected, major problems with issues like BSODs or BIOS.

That’s it for the 9800X3D review. You have all the numbers to make decisions. The 7800X3D may make more sense in the event its price falls significantly, but overall and all things totaled, we’re positive on this one.


Intel Core Ultra 5 245K CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 5700X3D, 13700K, & More

4 novembre 2024 à 22:57
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 5700X3D, 13700K, & Morejimmy_thang November 4, 2024

We review the Intel Core Ultra 245K CPU and analyze its efficiency, frequency, gaming performance, and more

The Highlights

  • The Intel 245K has 6 P cores, 8 E cores, and 14 threads
  • Despite efficiency improvements from Intel, AMD’s CPUs are generally more efficient
  • Compared to older Intel CPUs, the 245K consumes less power and is more efficient but sometimes regresses in performance
  • Original MSRP: $310
  • Release Date: October 24, 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

Now we’re reviewing the Intel Core Ultra 245K CPU, which you can think of as sort of a 15600K, just with a new name. This is a 6 P-core, 8 E-core part with 14 total threads. It’s priced at $310 MSRP and is meant to be a new mainstream gaming part.

Intel’s big Arrow Lake claim is efficiency and power consumption reductions, so we’ll spend a lot of time looking at that in addition to gaming and production performance.
Key comparisons against competing modern CPUs would be the 5700X3D, such as if you’re on AM4 and can upgrade one more time, the 9600X, and Intel’s prior generation parts. We’ll get into all of that.

Editor's note: This was originally published on October 25, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing
Patrick Lathan

Mike Gaglione

Quality Control
Jeremy Clayton
Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Camera

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Overview

Again, this review is hyper condensed compared to our 285K review. We really are leaving a lot of detail, but that’s because it’d be complete repeat information and is the same. We’ll focus mostly on charts today.

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Price Comparison

Let’s start with the price comparison. These prices were taken in the week before reviews are going live, so they may change by the time it publishes.

CPU Price Comparison | GamersNexusLate October, 2024

Newegg PriceAmazon Price
Intel 245K (MSRP $310)$330N/A
Intel 14700K$375$350
Intel 14600K$250$225
Intel 13700K$350$290
Intel 13600KN/A$225
Intel 12900K$300$280
Intel 12600KF$160$160
AMD 9700X$330$330
AMD 9600X$250$250
AMD 7900$370$370
AMD 7700X$275$275
AMD 7600$200$200
AMD 5950X$350$350
AMD 5700X3D$230$210
AMD 7800X3D$480$480

Here’s the list. Prices for both Intel’s 13th and 14th Series CPUs have recently dropped, as have some of AMD’s Zen 5 CPUs.

The 14700K is as cheap as $350 right now, which makes it a direct alternative to the 245K, despite buying into an older platform. It has at least gotten microcode updates that should resolve the major concerns. The 14600K is $225-$250 now, which is about the same price as the AMD 9600X. The 13600K is dwindling in supply, but $225 lately. The 12900K is also cheaper than the 245K, despite being on a pretty old platform, and is $280-$300. AMD’s 5700X3D (read our review) is around $210-$230 now, making it a key upgrade pathway for AM4 users. The 7800X3D is priced out of this territory, up at $480 typically. Keep in mind that a 9800X3D -- or whatever they end up calling it -- is due out on November 7th.

Here’s a slide showing the basic specs. The 285K is a 24-thread part and has 8 P-cores and 16 E-cores. Intel ditched hyper-threading, so it’s just the two core counts combined for thread-count. The 245K is a 14-thread part and has an advertised boost of up to 5.2GHz. Overall, Intel is focusing heavily on power consumption reductions and efficiency improvement.

But in the 285K review, we saw several areas where the CPU regressed in gaming performance. This complicates efficiency, because if the CPU is doing less work but also lower power, it’s not a clean improvement.

Let’s start with all of that.

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Efficiency Testing

This section gets into efficiency testing. There are some really important details in our 285K review that you need to see to fully understand and appreciate this section. We’re not going to go through it all again here. The most important part is that ASUS is directing some power through the ATX12V cables on the 24-pin connectors now, so we can’t rely on purely EPS12V. We’re going to leave a lot of detail out here on the assumption you got it in the longer review.

Efficiency: 7-Zip Compression

In 7-Zip compression efficiency testing, we measured the 245K with EPS12V and ATX12V at 108.1W on average, which produced a MIPS/W rating of 1130.6, or in other words, 1130.6 million instructions per Joule.

The 245K outranked the 285K’s efficiency in the same test, meaning that the 285K is beyond the optimum point in the curve for efficiency. It’s still improved over the preceding 14900K.

The 14600K scored 768.3 MIPS/W here at 166.5W, so the 245K is improved in efficiency. The 245K’s performance in Compression MIPS is actually lower than the 14600K’s (read our review), but its power consumption dropped so drastically (even with ATX12V measured) that it has measuredly improved in efficiency, at 47% more efficient than the 14600K. Adding the 5V line includes I/O and so isn’t perfect, but even that is more efficient. We talk about why we add both in the 285K review.

AMD remains the leader, with the 9600X at 1152.8 MIPS/W, the 5700X3D at 1281, and the 7700 non-X at 1436.2.

Efficiency: 7-Zip Decompression

7-Zip decompression uses power from the same test since we combine them, but has different scores. In this one, the 245K held a score of 1090 MIP/W. Its actual MIPS throughput, which we’ll show later, is significantly behind the 14600K, so the efficiency percentage uplift is dragged down by regressive performance, despite the total power reduction. The improvement over the 14600K’s 821.9 result is 32.6%.

The closest score in MIPS throughput to this is the 5800X3D (watch our review), which is just outside of error. The 5800X3D and 245K are therefore completing about the same output and are normalized in this way, allowing the 5800X3D a staggering lead of 28% more efficiency than the 245K.

Efficiency: Baldur’s Gate 3

In Baldur’s Gate 3 efficiency, the 245K ran at 71.5W and scored 1.3 FPS/W. That has it tied in efficiency with the R7 7700 and it tied with the 9700X which wasn’t distant. These three CPUs can be looked at as nearly work-normalized, or FPS-normalized, in addition to scoring the same efficiency. 

The 5800X3D has a substantial framerate lead and runs at only 65.7W, giving it a 1.8 FPS/W result at 38.5% more efficient than the 245K. The 5700X3D has a larger lead with its 51.1W result and is also typically cheaper, though on an old platform now with old I/O support. Still, it’s impressive.

Comparing the 245K to the 14600K, the lead is 44% uplift in efficiency compared to the 14600K’s 0.9 FPS/W result. The 14600K also had a slightly lower framerate in this one.

Efficiency: FFXIV Dawntrail

In Final Fantasy 14: Dawntrail, the 245K ran at 4.3 FPS/W and 51.8W, putting it behind the 9600X (which has a significantly higher framerate but about 10-11W higher power consumption) and ahead of the 14600K. The improvement over the 14600K’s 3.6 FPS/W result is 19%. The 5700X3D crushes here, up at 7.7 FPS/W and leading the 245K by 80% thanks to its lower power and its higher framerate.

Efficiency: Stellaris

Stellaris shows us simulations per Watt-hour, so higher is better despite the test being in seconds (with lower being better). 

In this test, the 245K ran at 53.5W and completes 1.9 simulations per Watt-hour. That has it about tied with the 5800X3D, which likewise is roughly tied in power consumption. These are good direct comparisons.

The 5700X3D’s power consumption drop benefits it greatly here, although it slows down in simulation time. Its score is 2.4 simulations per Watt-hour, or an improvement over the 245K of 26%.

Against the 14600K, the 245K improves by 46%. The 14600K is slower in simulation time here.

Frequency Comparison

Single-Core Frequency Comparison (14900K vs. 285K)

We’ll look at maximum single-core frequency under a Cinebench workload first, just to verify that the CPU does what Intel advertises.

The 285K plotted at about 5700MHz during this workload, with the 14900K at 6000MHz. The 14600K ran a maximum of about 5300MHz at any given period, with the new 245K at 5200MHz max. This is what Intel claims as the maximum, so that’s the bare minimum bar to clear and they have at least done that.

P-Core Frequency Comparison

This chart checks the P-core boosting behavior in an all-core workload. We measured the 285K at 5400MHz on average here. The 14900K’s (read our review) most recent result fluctuated around 5100-5200MHz. The 14600K has a flat 5300MHz P-core average from the original review. The 245K plots at 5000MHz for P-core boosting.

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Gaming Benchmarks

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Dragon’s Dogma 2

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is up. In this one, the 245K ran a baseline of 95 FPS AVG. This allowed it a slight lead over the similarly priced 9700X, at 91 FPS. The 245K also technically outperforms the 14600K, although realistically, they’re about equal. 

The cheaper and low-power 5700X3D outperforms the 245K by 8.4% with 103 FPS AVG, a considerable lead for the older platform with the X3D-refreshed part. Moving to the 285K yields a 9.8% uplift, but you should watch our 285K review for all the nuance on that. The price jump is so significant that, especially for gaming-first builds, the 7800X3D likely makes more sense for most people.

APO did nothing here.

F1 24 - 1080p

F1 24 is up next.

The 245K ran at 307 FPS AVG here. That has the 9700X (read our review) 23% ahead at 378 FPS, the 5700X3D 16% ahead at 355 FPS, and the 14600K 4% ahead with a 319 FPS AVG. Intra-architecture, the 285K offers a 12% uplift at 344 FPS AVG. Notables that the 245K outperforms include the 12600K from 2021, at 13.7% ahead.

APO actually does something in this game sometimes: We talked about the "exciting" 1.2% gain in the 14900K. The 245K gained 1.8 FPS AVG from APO. Some of that might even not be margin of error. Groundbreaking stuff. That’s almost 0.6%!...

F1 24 - 1440p

Because APO was so impressive, you can understand why we decided to not bother dedicating time to running it for the 1440p test of F1. We didn’t want it to embarrass everything else…

At 1440p, the chart becomes truncated by the resolution increase. The end result is largely the same lower down the stack, though: The 245K remains outflanked by the 13600K and 14600K above it and encroached upon by the 12600K below it. These CPUs were already mostly CPU-bound and remain so here.

FFXIV Dawntrail - 1080p

Final Fantasy 14: Dawntrail is up now. At 1080p, the 245K ran at 220 FPS AVG. This allowed the 9700X a staggering lead of 41% for a similar price. The 7700X is cheaper than the 245K, at $280 at the time of writing, and produces a 265 FPS AVG result. 

Against other CPUs: The 5700X3D outperforms the 245K by 37%, up at 301 FPS, with the 14600K leading it by 12% with its 248 FPS, and the 285K leading by 22% at 270 FPS. In our 285K review, we noted that Final Fantasy is one of Intel’s worst generational titles between the 14 Series and the Ultra 200 CPUs. As for APO, we were not able to pick up a difference outside of usual margins. The APO on result is 0.77% ahead of APO off, which is functionally noise.

FFXIV Dawntrail - 1440p

At 1440p, the 9700X’s lead is cut down to “only” -- and that “only” is doing some heavy lifting -- 22%. This is because of other limitations from the resolution change, but it shows that even at 1440p, the 245K is disadvantaged.

Baldur’s Gate 3

Baldur’s Gate 3 is up now, tested in the densely populated city center in Act III.

The 245K ran at 92-93 FPS AVG here. As a result, the 9700X improves upon its framerate by 7%, the 5700X3D’s 111 FPS result improves by 20%, and the 14600K is behind the 245K and alongside the 9600X. The 245K leads the 14600K by 6.2% here. This is at least better than what we saw with the 14900K and 285K. The 14900K was also encroaching on memory limitations, as evidenced by the 13700K and 13900K bouncing off of the same limit and the 285K with DDR5-8600 pushing ahead.

As for the 285K’s like-for-like lead over the 245K, that’s 8% at 100 FPS AVG.

Stellaris Simulation Time

Stellaris is up next for something different. This one gives us simulation time in seconds rather than framerate per second.

The 245K required 34.9 seconds to complete the simulation, with APO doing nothing for simulation time. The result has the 245K just ahead of the 5800X3D, behind the 7700 non-X, and behind the new 9600X. Zen 5 does well in this particular benchmark.

Against the 14600K, the 245K benefits from a simulation time requirement reduction of 4.6%. The 245K also leads the 5700X3D with a simulation time reduction of 8.9%, with the 5700X3D falling back from its reduced frequency. The 285K reduces the time requirement from the 245K to 32.5 seconds, or reducing the time by about 7%.

Rainbow Six Siege

Rainbow Six Siege is next. In the 285K review, we showed the above frametime plot -- which we’ll show again here -- to illustrate some behavior where it appears as if frametime pacing is a little more tuned on the 12-14 Series CPUs than most the others we test.

Here’s the chart for the 245K. The 245K ran at about 476 FPS AVG, allowing the 9700X a staggering 31% lead at 621 FPS. The 5700X3D ran at 526 FPS, or a 10% lead. Next is the 14600K at 517 FPS for a 9% advantage over the 245K. Intra-architecture, the 285K leads the 245K by a noteworthy 22.6% -- though we still don’t recommend it against alternatives mentioned in the 285K review. That’s at least a real gap for the price gap.

Toggling APO didn’t change the 285K or 245K, though that’s not shown on this chart.

Lows remain reduced on some architectures, including Arrow Lake.

Starfield

In Starfield, the 245K ran at 121FPS AVG. The 9700X held a 117 FPS result, within about 3% of the 245K but technically behind. The 5700X3D is also slightly behind, at 118 FPS. Intel’s own 14600K breaks away at 127 FPS, a 5% uplift over the 245K. Finally, the new 285K is about 18% ahead of the 245K -- similar to the gains we saw in Rainbow Six.

Toggling APO had no appreciable impact.

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Production Benchmarks

Time to move into production tests. Like with the 285K, we’ll keep this short and focused but dense with charts.

Blender

In Blender with CPU rendering, the 245K required 12.6 minutes to complete a render of a single frame from the GN video intro animation. That has it about a minute faster than the 14600K, reducing the time requirement by 7.4%. The 245K is beaten by the 14700K at 9.5 minutes, or a 24% reduction in time required. The 14700K (read our review) is $350 as we write this, which is a 13% increase in price over the 245K. The 285K was a relatively impressive performer in this test as well, with only the 9950X ahead of it. This is one of the few where Arrow Lake does OK in competitive scenarios.

7-Zip Compression

File compression with 7-Zip has the 245K at 122K MIPS, landing it behind the 13600K (watch our review) and 14600K. The 13600K improves upon the 245K by 4.1%. The 245K is just ahead of the 7700X and 9700X. The 7800X3D (watch our review) isn’t far back, but the extra cache doesn’t benefit it in our production suite.

The 285K with DDR5-8600 illustrated that this particular test benefits from better memory, providing a large uplift over the baseline 170K MIPS result that tied the stock setup with the 14700K.

7-Zip Decompression

Decompression doesn’t benefit nearly as much from the memory improvement, but does benefit from the extra threads found on some CPUs. The 14900K-to-285K comparison is an easy example of this, as is the presence of both of AMD’s 16-core SKUs at the top of the chart.

The 245K lands far down the chart, just ahead of the 5800X3D and behind the 5800X and 7800X3D. The 5800X illustrates that the higher frequency is more beneficial to this test than the extra cache on the 5800X3D. The 245K ends up beaten by the 14600K at 137K MIPS, an increase of 16%. The 13600K is similarly advantaged.

The 285K’s 193K MIPS result has it 64% ahead of the 245K, similar to the lead we see from the 14900K over the 14600K.

Ultimately, the 245K is beaten by several CPUs that are direct competitors, including the 7700 non-X (watch our review), the preceding 13700K and 14600K, the 7800X3D, and the 9700X.

Chromium Compile

Chromium code compile is up now. We explained the memory capacity change for high-end parts and the frequency limit on the 9950X in our 285K review.

In this one, the 245K required 134 minutes to complete the compile. That’s tied with the 14600K. The time requirement reduction for the 245K from the 9700X is 10% here, with the latter at 149 minutes. It’s also predictably better than the 7800X3D.

The 13700K (watch our review) reduces the compile time to 105 minutes, or a reduction in time of 21%.

Adobe Premiere

Using the Puget Suite, Adobe Premiere lands at 9824 points for the 245K. That has the new CPU sandwiched by the 7900 and 7900X above and the 13600K and 14600K below, with a more meaningful gap over the 9700X and 7800X3D. The $250 i7-13700K gives the 245K a serious run for its higher cost though, at 10616 points. 

The 285K posts a large uplift over the 245K, at 15% higher in score. This was one of the more favorable tests for Arrow Lake with the 285K. That’s true too of the 245K, but there are better value alternatives (like the 13700K - especially now that Intel claims the microcode issue is fixed).

Adobe Photoshop

Adobe Photoshop is dominated by AMD in the current iteration of the software and Puget test. The 245K and 285K are far down the list, both behind the 13700K, 14700K, and almost everything modern from AMD. It’s not much of a contest here.

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Conclusion

Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!

Here’s how it all breaks down: First off, we think you should probably just wait a week and see what the 9000X3D CPU does to the pricing and market. 

That out of the way: It’s clear that Intel has, in fact, reduced its power consumption. That doesn’t mean, however, that it makes sense to purchase an Arrow Lake CPU. 

Even catching the ATX12V power changes on our ASUS board, the CPU is lower power consumption and higher efficiency, even when it sometimes regresses in performance. Some games saw improved performance and lower power consumption, like Stellaris, which resulted in larger uplift than areas where we saw heavy performance regression, like Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail as compared to CPUs like the 14600K.

In production workloads, we saw regression from the 14600K in 7-Zip compression (though it still beats the 9700X there, so that’s impressive) and a few other areas. In Photoshop, the 245K improved on the 14600K technically, but AMD still holds a massive lead in this particular test. Premiere was a cleaner victory for the 245K, improving on the 14600K and reducing power draw.

Gaming had the 245K down around the 7700 levels in Baldur’s Gate 3 and ahead of the 9600X, but getting crushed by the 5700X3D, 5600X3D, and obviously the 7800X3D. Although the 245K’s relative positioning against the 9600X and 14600K flip-flopped, like in F1 where it was remarkably non-competitive, the global constant was that X3D outperformed the 245K. Fortunately for Intel, AMD doesn’t have any modern platform X3D CPUs that are in this price range. Until it replaces the 5700X3D in price with an AM5 part, Intel will at least have an advantage in fully modernized I/O despite disadvantages elsewhere like in raw performance as compared to something like an AM4 platform build, which is also just building into a close-to-EOL ecosystem.
Intel’s strongest argument right now is in the non-gaming workloads, but like the 285K, we just think the 245K has too much fierce competition to make sense at the moment. The efficiency improvement is important, and we talk at length about the power cost savings in the 285K review to calculate it across several years of ownership. It’s good that they improved there. It’s just that this platform (1) isn’t really ready, having already half a dozen major bugs leading into launch, and (2) is embattled on all sides by similarly priced or cheaper options.


Get It Together, Intel: Core Ultra 9 285K CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 7800X3D, 9950X, More

29 octobre 2024 à 20:47
Get It Together, Intel: Core Ultra 9 285K CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 7800X3D, 9950X, Morejimmy_thang October 29, 2024

We test Intel’s Core Ultra 9 285K CPU in a series of efficiency, productivity, and gaming benchmarks

The Highlights

  • The 285K does away with hyperthreading and offers 8-P cores and 16-E cores
  • For non-gaming applications, the 285K is interesting but its price isn’t justifiable
  • AMD’s 7800X3D is far superior for gaming and efficiency
  • Original MSRP: $590-$630
  • Release Date: October 24, 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Intro

We’re reviewing the Intel Core Ultra 285K CPU.
Take a look at the giant spiky ATX12V line for the 285K on the chart below compared to the 14900K ATX12V line. This is going to be a problem for testing power today and efficiency. It’s not as simple as just measuring the EPS12V cables anymore, at least not on ASUS.

Editor's note: This was originally published on October 24, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing

Patrick Lathan

Testing, Editing

Mike Gaglione

Quality Control

Jeremy Clayton

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Camera

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


We had to build a monstrosity to isolate the power consumption to the CPU for Arrow Lake, because ASUS is pulling significant power down the ATX 24-pin connector and not just the EPS12V cables. 

If we didn’t do all of this, we would have measured the 285K as the most efficient CPU possibly ever made, but that’s because the power has simply moved to split across 4 phases for the 24-pin and 18 for the rest. 

If it’s been a while since you checked in, you can think of the 285K as the “i9-15900K,” except Intel stopped that naming. 

Intel’s big claim is that power consumption is halved, so we’ll spend a lot of time validating that today. Let’s get started.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Pricing

We’ll start with a price round-up of the current landscape.

CPU Price Comparison | GamersNexusLate October, 2024

Newegg PriceAmazon Price
Intel 285K (MSRP $590)$630N/A
Intel 14900K$470$470
Intel 14700K$375$350
Intel 13900KN/A$415
Intel 13700K$350$290
Intel 12900K$300$280
Intel 12600KF$160$160
AMD 9950X$600$710
AMD 9900X$430$430
AMD 9700X$330$330
AMD 7950X3D$600$600
AMD 7950X$510$510
AMD 7900X$400$400
AMD 7900$370$370
AMD 7800X3D$480$480

We put this table together a few days before launch, so the exact prices may be different when this story goes live; however, as Chronomancers haven’t been a core D&D class since AD&D 2e in 1995 with TSR’s publication of the Chronomancer handbook, we haven’t had a way to time travel for a couple decades and regretfully can’t review future prices anymore.

The 285K is $630 with the pre-order pricing, or $160 more than the 14900K (read our review). We don’t care about the launch MSRP of prior parts, only what they’re available at today since that’s when people buy things.

The 14700K is $350-$375, the 13700K is $290 in some places, the 12900K is down to $280, and the much weaker 12600KF is now $160. Buying into these dead platforms isn’t a great feeling, though.

AMD’s direct alternatives include the $480 7800X3D with a rumored 9800X3D in a week, so if that’s true, we’ll have more to say soon. The 285K is 31% more money than the 7800X3D. The 9950X is also cheaper than the 285K’s current pre-order price.

The new 285K is flanked by the best gaming CPU with the 7800X3D (watch our review) -- which is also the most efficient CPU we’ve tested recently -- and the 9950X and 7950X for production.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Specs & Basics

For the absolute barebones basics, the main thing you need to know is that Arrow Lake and the Core Ultra 200 lineup (so far) move away from monolithic silicon and toward a tile-based approach, including manufacturing from Intel competitor TSMC.

Intel has gotten rid of hyper-threading and is instead moving to just P-cores and E-cores with these CPUs, so the 285K has 8-P cores, 16 E-cores, and 24 threads against the 14900K’s 32 total threads. Frequency is also down, now at 5.7GHz advertised but because the architectures are different, you can’t directly compare the frequency numbers. We’ll review the 245K next, but that one’s at 6 P-cores and 8 E-cores. 

The new platform is LGA 1851 and requires new motherboards. These will not work in LGA 1700 motherboards, and LGA 1700 CPUs will not work in LGA 1851 motherboards. There are also multiple independent loading mechanism options chosen by motherboard manufacturers -- we’ll have a separate video shortly with laser scans and pressure maps of those. More specs can be found in our Arrow Lake announcement coverage.

Not Ready for Launch

First off: Arrow Lake really doesn’t seem ready for launch. Intel told us this about Arrow Lake in a briefing:

“The big change is that every ODM now, without fail, every ODM ships with this [APO] enabled. In the BIOS, the Camarillo device is turned on, there’ll be a yellow bang, the driver will install, and APO will be enabled by default. That’s the out-of-box-experience everybody is going to have. You’d want to mimic what folks are going to see.”

“This is going to be something that is going to be probably just as important as the hardware improvements. [...] All your ODMs, the board vendors, it’s all enabled by default and should auto-install, 13th Gen onward.”

This is important because we don’t test with APO so we had to consider it for this review. 

Intel presented first-party benchmark slides with APO enabled and emphasized with us that not only would it be on by default with Z890, but that it would also be on by default with Z790. Neither was true. We discovered this issue and brought it to Intel only because we weren’t sure if it was our fault, and it wasn’t. The company seemed totally unaware of this failing and, after some back-and-forth, eventually realized it had simply screwed up. As a result of our findings, Intel is moving to publish a list of motherboards that support APO out of the box on by default in BIOS going forward. 

While that’s great for consumers so that it clears up the misleading nature of the original claims, this product is clearly not ready if we’re the ones beta testing such strong statements as “without fail” for a feature that wasn’t present, as pointless as it often is. 

Dynamic Tuning also no longer exists on our board, despite Intel telling us that it should be present and enabled. The option has been renamed to Innovation Platform Framework and was off by default, which meant APO was off.

With the latest microcode and BIOS on Z790 for these reviews, we also found that APO was off by default for those platforms as well.

We consider APO off the default user experience for the product as Intel shipped it to us; however, we tested with both. APO was ultimately irrelevant in our test suite.

This was one of many unforced errors from Intel, with others including BSODs on Windows install due to a driver conflict with NVIDIA devices when the IGP is enabled. This issue did not exist on prior architectures and seems to be a combination of the new IGP claiming the PCIE resources and of NVIDIA’s driver code not having an error handler for 0 PCIE resource availability. You can bypass it by disabling the IGP, but for a lot of people, this will be frustrating.

The platform also has some issues with Easy Anti-Cheat, which Intel will soon be publishing a statement about, but we’ll leave that to Wendell’s coverage, but basically, if you disable security features, you’re able to work around the issue. We just wouldn’t recommend it.

Additionally, Intel sent a statement about power profiles where balanced power on 24H2 results in uncharacteristically bad performance. We test with high performance except where we’re specifically required to use balance in some X3D situations so this didn’t affect us but does represent one of Intel’s launch problems. 

Intel even got its own specs wrong on the slide above where it said the chipset can support up to 32 USB 3.2 devices but actually it’s supposed to be 10. This is all to point out that Arrow Lake is really just not ready for launch.  

Efficiency Testing

Power at 24-Pin & Raw Power Draw (Blender)

Let’s get into the efficiency testing.

This is really important, but we’ll try to keep it short: On at least the ASUS Z890 motherboard we have, the 24-pin is doing disproportionate work. This is likely a board-to-board thing, not Arrow Lake as a whole.

24-Pin & EPS12V Power: 14900K (Baldur’s Gate)

Proving our work: This plot shows the 14900K’s power draw in a known workload spread across multiple rails. You can see that EPS1 and EPS2 power is similar, both at around 70-80W in this lighter weight gaming workload. The 24-pin has several voltages, including 3.3V, 5V, 5VSB, and 12V shown here. 

The ATX12V rail includes things like fans, the CPU, and if we hadn’t isolated it, slot power, among other miscellaneous controllers on motherboards. 

Slot power is around 30-35W, which is why it’s important to isolate it if capturing 24-pin power. 

Slot Power Problems

Here’s why we isolate slot power: This benchmark was for 7-Zip on the 14900K. The GPU does literally nothing in this test except spit out the display. It does not engage in the test. However, occasionally in any test, we measure seemingly random spikes to slot power. This could be for a number of unpredictable reasons, including innocuous ones like Windows background tasks or NVIDIA’s drivers doing something in the background, such as telemetry.

24-Pin & EPS12V Power: 14900K vs. 285K

Here’s the comparison we’ve wanted:

In 7-Zip, ignoring EPS12V, we noticed that the ATX12V power was exceptionally high on the 285K and Z890 Hero combination compared to the 14900K and Z790 Hero. It’s at about 50W here, whereas the 14900K had ATX12V down around 30W.

ATX3V power is comparable on both and within 2W. ATX5V power isn’t easy to call a simple average since it fluctuates so much: The range is 14-30W on the 285K+ASUS combination and similar on the 14900K, with peaks about 3-5W lower than the 285K. We don’t know if any of that power is getting used for regulators that might feed the CPU, but if any of it is, it’s not much. A lot of it is driving other components, like I/O.

The ATX12V line is clearly important though, as not factoring-in that 20-30W difference in this test would mean representing the 285K as artificially efficient because the power is sort of “hidden” in a cable where it’s not typically meaningfully high. ASUS’ reasoning for this is theoretically better power regulation. We don’t know if anyone else is doing this.

24-Pin Power: 7800X3D vs. 285K ATX12V

Finally, as an example of AMD, here’s the 7800X3D and 285K.

The 285K and 14900K ATX12V remains from last time. The 7800X3D was pulling about 12W ATX12V fixed during this test and didn’t seem to fluctuate based on load at all. It appears fairly isolated. Typically, this gap of 10W comes out in the wash when you’re talking a 280W 14900K versus an 80W 7800X3D, so it’s just part of the usual margins. In this scenario, however, the difference against the 285K really starts to show.

24-Pin Power: 7800X3D vs. 285K ATX3V

Here’s ATX3V. The 7800X3D platform is marginally higher here -- we’re using an ASUS board for this also. This is part of why 5V normally comes out in the wash: Some rails are a few Watts higher, some a few Watts lower. There is always going to be error.

24-Pin Power: 7800X3D vs. 285K ATX5V

ATX5V is about the same between them all. There is possibly spikier behavior on the 285K from the I/O, but that’s about it. 

Software Readings

All this is done with hardware. We also can’t trust various software readings because they can be manipulated heavily by software or motherboards. Years ago, there was an issue where AMD motherboards were underreporting the power in a way that allowed boards to pull more or less power while hiding it in software, thus manipulating the report. We also spoke with Der8auer about his experiences, and he noticed that CPU Package Power is calculated based on VID, so if anything is wrong with voltage, it will manifest in erroneous software readings.

And that leads us back to our monster we’ve built. We are fairly confident in the results, but we have to caveat that this is a very opaque platform currently and it’s not fully clear how all the power is routed. For the most part, it should be proportional to the VRM split of 18:4 of the 22 phases total, so we were able to use that as a guidepost.

Finally: You might be asking “who measures the measurers,” and the answer is... us. Working with Elmor, we hooked up other current monitoring devices in series to monitor the current monitoring devices, and we also clamped the cables to monitor the monitoring of the monitoring devices while monitoring the software of the monitoring-monitoring devices and the CPU-monitoring software monitor.

Once that was all done and we had tested against calibrated Fluke meters with known current loads, we proceeded with the most accurate combination of monitoring.

Let’s get into the efficiency testing.

Efficiency: 7-Zip Decompression

7-Zip decompression efficiency is measured in MIPS/W, or millions of instructions per joule.

In this test, the 285K ended up in the lower-third of the chart. Intel’s 14900K pulled 273W in this test, with the 285K now at 162W for ATX12V and EPS12V without slot power, or 175W with ATX12V, ATX5V, and EPS12V. We think the 162W number is more accurate, but want to transparently present both since the power split is still not fully clear.

Because performance is lower and the formula relies on both, the efficiency increase isn’t as impressive as the power drop. The 285K runs with an efficiency of 1101 MIPS/W decompression with the reading that includes 5V, or an improvement of 29% over the 14900K. The reading without 5V is 40% improved over the 14900K, which we think is the more accurate one. Whether 30% or 40% is closer, the point is that it’s a big uplift. AMD still dominates here, holding the entire top-third of the chart, though. The 7950X in ECO mode sets a seemingly untouchable score at 1936 MIPS/W. The 7800X3D, which is much slower than the 285K in 7-Zip decompression, is more efficient thanks to its 70W power draw.

Efficiency: 7-Zip Compression

Here’s the 7-Zip compression result. Power consumption is measured across compression and decompression in the same test suite, so those figures are unchanged.

The 285K scored 1051 MIPS/W with ATX12V and EPS12V, an improvement over the 14900K’s 672 MIPS/W of 56%. This uplift versus decompression comes from the higher performance in 7-Zip compression relative to its scaling in decompression.

AMD’s 7800X3D is at the top here. Again, it’s not the best performer, but its 70W power is impressive and allows it to remain the true most-efficient CPU we’ve tested lately. 

Efficiency: Baldur’s Gate 3

Baldur’s Gate 3 could get more complicated, but we’ve isolated out the PCIe slot power by using an interposer to power the video card instead.

The entire X3D lineup continues its domination in this game, and most others. The high framerate and low power land the 7800X3D at 2.3 FPS/W, as it’s pulling only 55W during this gaming workload. The 5700X3D is about the same, with the 5800X3D (watch our review) slightly less efficient. Intel’s new 285K isn’t remotely close to these numbers.

The 285K with ATX12V and EPS12V ran at 1.1 FPS/W, so the 7800X3D is creating over 2x as many frames per Watt of power. The 14900K ran at 0.7 FPS/W here. Looking at just Intel, the 1.1 result of the 285K has at least improved substantially over the 14900K, with an uplift of 57%; if we include the 5V power, since we’re not certain if any of it is being used for the CPU, that would be a 29% uplift. 

Efficiency: Starfield

Starfield is a heavier workload from gaming.

In this one, the 7800X3D is again the most efficient. Its result was 2.1 FPS/W, holding a large lead over the next closest CPUs. The next closest CPU is the 5700X3D, also at about 70W. The 5800X3D, 9700X, and 7700 non-X follow this. We eventually hit the 3700X (read our revisit), then the 285K.

With the ATX12V and EPS12V measurements and without PCIe slot, we end up at about 147W for a 1.0 FPS/W rating with the usual rounding.

The 14900K ran at 0.7 FPS/W here, so Intel has improved by 43%. Its Ultra 9 is now about where the 14600K was previously. Measuring 5V as well had it at 172W, or 0.8 FPS/W. That would instead be an improvement of 14%. As before, we believe the 1.0 figure is closer to reality, but it likely falls in between.

Efficiency: Stellaris

The next game is Stellaris, where we measured simulation time in seconds and power. In order to make this as easy to follow as possible, we’ve done some simple arithmetic to convert this into “simulations per watt-hour,” meaning that a bigger number is better despite the base metric result being lower-is-better.

The 7800X3D has an impressive score here, at 2.7 simulations per watt-hour. The next closest is down at 2.4 with the 5700X3D (read our review).

The 285K ran 1.5 simulations per Watt-hour. That means for each watt-hour, the 7800X3D is able to complete 1.2 more simulations, or about an 80% increase. 

The 14900K completed 0.9 simulations per Watt-hour. That means the 285K’s best entry is an improvement of 67% in efficiency. Remember: Most of Intel’s presented numbers were only for power reductions, not necessarily for efficiency. The 285K’s simulation performance is better than the 14900K’s in this benchmark, so its combination of higher performance and lower power (which was reduced by 46.6W from the 14900K) yields this huge increase in efficiency. 

Efficiency: Final Fantasy XIV

Finally, Final Fantasy 14 for efficiency. In this one, the 7800X3D led with an impressive 42.5W power draw while spewing hundreds of frames per second, allowing it a result of 8.3 FPS/W. That’s great. The 5700X3D keeps its second-place spot at 7.7. The 14900K ran at 3.1 FPS/W, so the 285K is 32% improved by these numbers. This is one where the 285K was regressive in performance against the 14900K -- and by sort of a lot, but we’ll come back to that. The result is reduced efficiency gains.

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Frequency Testing

Single-Core Frequency Comparison (14900K vs. 285K)

Next, we’ll validate the frequency behavior to establish how the CPUs behave out of the box.

This chart plots the highest single core frequency per interval during a single-threaded Cinebench workload.

With the 285K, the max single-core frequency is 5700MHz during testing, with frequent drops to 5400MHz. These drops are abnormal on Intel during this test.

The 14900K with the latest microcode held 6000MHz. These are different architectures, so it’s not as simple as stating that higher is better; however, it helps at least illustrate where some of the performance losses are coming from.

The original launch microcode had it at the same frequency.

P-Core Frequency Comparison

This chart looks at P-core frequency averages during a Blender workload. 

The 285K maintains an average P-core frequency of 5400MHz in this testing. It’s relatively flat. That has it higher than the 2024 ASUS test entry, which is what we used for our review comparison today, at around 5100-5220MHz. The 2023 launch entry was higher, at 5280-5400MHz on average. The microcode changes may have affected this since launch. The MSI 0x11D microcode entry had the CPU at around 5000MHz from the same window as the ASUS 2023 entry. The most up-to-date frequency entry sits between the two flanks of early 14900K tests. 

All-Core Frequency Comparison

Finally, this chart shows the all-core averages in the same test. The 285K averaged 4867MHz when factoring-in the E-cores, with the modern 14900K just below 4500MHz and flanked by the two older entries.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Gaming Benchmarks

Now we’re going to get into gaming benchmarks. We have a lot of 2023 and 2024 games in our test suite along with mainstays from the past.

Dragon’s Dogma 2

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is up now. This is one of the 2024 titles we added to our suite last time. It’s had updates that affect performance since our last round of benchmarks. APO doesn’t do anything in this benchmark and isn’t supported. We tested with it on and off for both the 14900K and 285K and its performance was the same, so we removed the redundant entries here since they have no impact.

The 285K landed at about 104 FPS AVG, with lows at 64 FPS and 51 FPS. 

This allows the AMD 7800X3D at $480 to lead the $590 285K by 6.1%, with the 14900K at 5% ahead. The lows between these 3 CPUs are functionally identical. The 14700K and 13700K also lead the 285K here, with the 14700K (read our review) far cheaper at $350. The 5700X3D and 5600X3D (read our review) are effectively tied, with the 5700X3D at $230, or sometimes down closer to $200.

F1 24 - 1080p

In F1 24, which, for hopefully obvious reasons, is a 2024 title, we end up with this set of results when fully retested in 24H2 and with new microcode and AGESA.

The 7800X3D sets a high ceiling and establishes a 28% lead over the more expensive and higher power-consuming 285K, at 438 FPS to 344 FPS AVG. The 14900K is also advantaged, this time by 12% with a 385 FPS result. The lows for the 285K were 186 FPS 1%, which is a worse entry than the 14900K’s 250 result. The frametime pacing appears better, in-step with the average, on both the 14900K and 7800X3D.

Looking now at the APO results, toggling APO does appear to do something in this game: The 285K gained 1.3% with APO on. How very exciting -- we can hardly contain ourselves. You’ll surely notice the extra 3-4 frames per second on top of the other 343 before them. We’re so glad we spent half a day troubleshooting Intel’s fumbled pre-launch settings to gain those frames back... Whatever would we have done without the extra 0.0369 ms reduction in frame time?...

The 14900K also gained about the same amount. It’s irrelevant on both.

Using DDR5-8600 on the 285K with Gear 2 and blasted VDIMM boosted it to 359 FPS AVG, a 4.5% like-for-like lead over the 344 result. This is almost enough to get the 285K tied with the two-generation-old 13700K (watch our review) from 2022, but not quite. It does, however, tie it with the AMD’s 2020 architecture found in the cache-bolstered 5700X3D with its lower power.

F1 24 - 1440p

1440p results are mostly uninteresting: The top is truncated heavily by the increase in resolution. Even still, the new Ultra 9 ends up in the middle. It’s fitting that the Core Ultra 9 is in the middle of a cluster.

FFXIV Dawntrail - 1080p

Final Fantasy 14: Dawntrail is up now. This is another 2024 addition to our testing.

The 7800X3D again establishes the ceiling. It leads the 285K by 31% in this game, at 353 FPS to 270 FPS AVG. The 14900K’s 310 FPS AVG establishes a 15% lead over the 285K, marking one of the largest declines of Intel’s performance in our gaming suite.

The 5800X3D and 5600X3D are also at the top here, showing that Dawntrail just generally really likes cache, at least on these CPUs. The 5700X3D is a little lower down since its frequency is 300MHz below that of the 5600X3D, so these results make sense.

The 285K ends up below the 14700K and 13700K, with APO doing nothing on the 285K. It’s within error. Final Fantasy 14 is officially supported by APO though and is on the games list, and we do see a slight uplift on the 14900K of 1%, basically error. Switching to DDR5-8600 on the 285K provided an uplift of 4%, with it still below the 13700K after that. Of course, the same memory treatment would lift others up also.

FFXIV Dawntrail - 1440p

At 1440p, the limited ceiling is shuffling the stack as a result of the framerate bouncing off of other limits. We saw a 1.9% uplift from APO on the 14900K. The 285K, again, did not benefit from APO, with both entries at 255 FPS AVG +/- 1FPS.

Baldur’s Gate 3

Baldur’s Gate 3 is up now, a 2023 title that we added to our permanent suite this year. We test in Act III in a densely populated city area for a heavy CPU load.

The 7800X3D establishes a 26% lead over the 285K, at 126 FPS to 100 FPS AVG. The 14900K leads the 285K by 4.5%, at about 105 FPS AVG.

The 5800X3D, 5700X3D, and 5600X3D also lead the 285K, as do the 13900K, 13700K and 14700K.

Toggling APO did nothing here and was within variance for both the 14900K and 285K. Swapping to DDR5-8600 memory boosted the 285K by 7.6%, allowing it to pass everything except the X3D CPUs (this also perfectly aligns with why X3D does so well here). Of course, shoving better memory into the 14900K or 9000-series AMD CPUs would also boost them fairly proportionally.

Stellaris Simulation Time

Stellaris is up next. 

APO has no impact on this game. 

The 285K required 32.5 seconds for the simulation, finally putting it ahead of the 14900K. The 285K requires about 1-2% less time than the 14700K and 14900K CPUs.

The 7800X3D outranks the 285K again and requires about 3.7% less time for the work. The 9700X remains the fastest here, which is consistent with our last round of data.

Boosting memory helps in this game, so the 285K benefited from a 4.3% reduction in time to complete the simulation.

Rainbow Six Siege

Rainbow Six Siege is up. In this one, the 7800X3D leads by a much smaller amount, at only 6.6% for 622 vs. 584 FPS AVG when APO is in its default off position that this board shipped in. The 14900K was tied. Enabling APO did nothing on the 285K. The result was within error when considering we’re almost at 600 FPS. Enabling it boosted the 14900K by 1.7%, and this is with Intel’s sh*tty Microsoft Store App confirming that it’s enabled for both CPUs. This boost is reduced for the 14900K versus APO’s launch because Rainbow Six has updated the code that was causing problems.

Going to DDR5-8600 increased performance over the 584 result by 2.6%.

The 285K is at least better than the 14700K in this one, with an uplift of 2%. It’s also about 1.8% ahead of the 7700 non-X, which has been $280-$290 lately when you can still find it. 

As a general note, this game has some serious 0.1% low consistency issues. We noticed that the 12-14 Series CPUs have significantly higher 0.1% lows than AMD’s options and than the 285K alike. It’s easier to look at a frametime plot.

Rainbow Six Siege Frametimes

Here it is. Because Intel noted that Rainbow Six had specifically tuned to reduce reliance on APO, and because of the low advantage of Alder Lake onward, we’re assuming that Rainbow Six Siege has specific and manual tuning for the Alder Lake architecture and its more recent derivatives.

This frametime plot shows the 14900K is overall highly consistent frame-to-frame, with most of the intervals deviating at most by 2ms. There are a few spikes, but only one notable spike to 6ms -- which is a 4ms deviation, and thus wouldn’t be noticed by the vast majority of users.

Adding the 285K, we see several spikes to 10-11ms. By themselves, these frametimes aren’t bad. 60 FPS would be 16.667ms, so this isn’t a huge stall. But it is a big change from Raptor Lake and is objectively worse.

Starfield

In Starfield, another 2023 game, the 7800X3D maintains a 2% advantage over the 285K, at 145.4 to 142.5 FPS AVG. We’re bound elsewhere -- and that elsewhere is obvious: The DDR5-8600 result jumps to the top of the chart, illustrating that at least some of our limit is memory. As a reminder, applying the memory tuning treatment to everything would boost all numbers, so looking at baseline will give you an idea for their headroom.

The 14900K actually falls behind for once, at a slight loss to the 285K. We think this corresponds with the cache changes, based on the memory performance we just saw.

APO, once again, does nothing between the two main 285K entries.

Total Warhammer 3

Total War: Warhammer 3 is up now. The 7800X3D led the 285K by 7.2%, with the 14900K leading by 2.8%. Total Warhammer 3 is on the APO list, so it’s supported. On the 14900K, we saw an uplift of about 1.2%. On the 285K, we measured an improvement of 0.6% -- basically error.

Lows in this game have been historically awful on Intel’s i9 CPUs, which we previously proved is due to scheduling challenges with the thread count. The 285K at least seems to somewhat improve here, possibly by the reduction in threads.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Production Benchmarks

We’re getting into production benchmarks now. 

Blender

Blender is up first. We’ve updated it, so it’s not comparable to prior results.

The 285K is our second-highest performer on the charts for desktop-class CPUs. The 9950X (read our review) benefits from a render time requirement reduction of 5.6%, while the 285K reduces render time from the 14900K by 16.5%. That’s finally some uplift.

These types of tests are also where AMD’s 7800X3D and 5800X3D show their limits as 8-core CPUs, both falling far down the charts. That’s a known quantity. If you’re only gaming, they make the most sense. If you mix in a good amount of heavily threaded software for work, it may make sense to buy something else on this list.

7-Zip Compression

In file compression with 7-Zip, the 285K completed 170K MIPS and roughly tied the i7-14700K. The 14900K holds an advantage of 8%. The 9950X and 7950X (watch our review) outperform the 285K significantly, with the 9900X just behind. Memory seemed to really help in this test, pushing the 285K up by a gargantuan 18.7%. That’s a huge uplift. 

7-Zip Decompression

Decompression doesn’t benefit as much, posting a 4% improvement. The stack also shuffles, with the 9900X and 7900X both surpassing the 285K here. The memory subsystem benefits don’t translate as much as they did in compression, both stock and with the better RAM.

The 14900K leads the 285K by a staggering 21% in this benchmark, benefitting from its extra threads. The 9950X establishes an impressive ceiling, at 42% ahead of the 285K.

Chromium Compile

Next is our Chromium code compile test. For this test, we double the RAM capacity on some CPUs when they page-out or otherwise fail to complete the compile. This only occurs with the highest-performing few CPUs. This test has been updated since last round, so load on CPUs has slightly changed.

In the situation of the 9950X, there is one disclaimer here, we were not able to get it stable at DDR5-6000 with 64GB when running our usual tighter timings. We experimented briefly with reducing the timings, higher voltages, and altered infinity fabric, but ultimately had to call it for now and run it at DDR5-5600 to accommodate 64GB. That makes the 9950X an imperfect comparison. With that limitation disclosed due to stability issues, the 9950X and 285K are roughly equal. That may change if we can rerun the 9950X and find stability.

For direct comparisons, the 285K leads the 14900K by only about a 3-minute time reduction or a total compile time requirement reduction of 3.8%. As usual, the 8-core X3D parts are lower down the stack, like the 7800X3D and 5800X3D. 

Adobe Premiere

Now for the Adobe software, tested with the Puget Suite. 

Premiere has the 285K as the new chart-topper, at 11,336 points. That’s how this whole review should have been, especially with a power reduction. Unfortunately, it wasn’t this way.

The lead over the 14900K is small, at 2.5% uplift in aggregate. The 9950X is AMD’s top CPU here, at 10,914 points. The 285K has a 3.9% lead.

Adobe Photoshop

In Adobe Photoshop, AMD has a clean sweep of the entire top half of the charts. Those of you who’ve been watching us for at least 5 years will remember an era where it was the opposite. The first Intel entry doesn’t appear until below the 7600X, and that’s the 14900K. 

The 9950X leads the 285K by 22% here and the 14900K leads it by 3.5%.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Conclusion

Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!

Simplifying all of this, our current conclusion is this:

The 285K does not have a particularly strong place in any one market. 

The 7800X3D is far superior in both gaming and efficiency. The 285K can hardly make sense against even the 5700X3D, and AMD’s 9800X3D is days away at this point. For non-gaming, the CPU is more interesting but we still don’t think it is broadly justifiable at the current CPU and platform costs. 

Even Intel’s prior-gen parts are far cheaper right now, like the 13700K and 14700K, which theoretically have been fixed with microcode. If you were to argue that the inefficiency of the prior gen parts counters some of the savings in the form of lower power, it’s just not a strong argument. The 14700K is $350 now, so it’s $280 cheaper than a 285K. 

Power Value - Cheap Power

If your power costs $0.10/kWh like ours, then you’d need to play the highest CPU load games for 8 hours a day for an entire year in order to gain $19 of value in power bill reductions for the 285K against the 14700K. At $0.15, the shut-in gaming levels would give the 285K a savings of $30 over one year of literally playing Starfield or Cyberpunk as a full-time job. At the peak of degeneracy that we all strive to achieve, you’d have to play games at this pace for 10 years to have spent more on power than the cost savings of buying the cheaper CPU (it’s the delta, not total cost). Maybe throw in a cheaper cooler as well since power is down and call it 8 years.

Power Value - Moderate Power

Even at $0.30/kWh, the $280 price savings from the 14700K would require 5 years to wipe-out with the power bill while playing Cyberpunk 8 hours per day for 5 years, or in other words, 14,560 hours of Cyberpunk.

Power Value - Expensive Power

Let’s just say you pay $0.50/kWh. In one standard 3-year upgrade cycle, you can save the amount of money in power you’d save buying the 14700K -- which we still don’t recommend for gaming -- rather than the 285K. That’d be a savings of $92.60 per year (at $307.7 - $215.1).

Or, you go with the 7800X3D and get higher framerates and still a power cost reduction, even at these high electricity prices, of $114 per year at these crazy gaming hours.

And ultimately, no matter what argument is made for power savings, like room temperature or something, you can still point to AMD as an answer.

The reduction in power consumption is important and does mean cheaper cooling is possible, so that’s good. Intel is objectively getting more efficient, but regressive performance in games is hard to deal with. The production performance mostly improved at lower thread count, and that actually is great. The problem is that at $630, there are very few cases where the 285K makes sense right now.

Our approach to reviews is very consumer-oriented and value-oriented. That means for us, we need to see a strong value argument to recommend a part. Even forgetting completely about power as a factor and looking only at performance for the price, it just doesn’t make sense to us despite being an important building block.

The best news out of the 285K is that it might be a fresh start for Intel and that it is genuinely a lot easier to hit higher memory clocks than before, and that benefits it in tests like our 7-Zip benchmark.

But we just think there are better CPUs out there at lower prices.


Lian Li Lancool 207 Airflow Case Review | Cable Management, Build Quality, & Benchmarks

22 octobre 2024 à 01:22
Lian Li Lancool 207 Airflow Case Review | Cable Management, Build Quality, & Benchmarksjimmy_thang October 21, 2024

Lian Li’s Lancool 207 excels thermally and is budget friendly but struggles in basic areas

The Highlights

  • Lian Li’s Lancool 207 moves the PSU to the front of the case to accommodate 2 shroud-top fans
  • The Lancool 207 struggles with cable management and has issues with its power supply fit
  • The Lancool 207 is the new best-performing case on our thermal charts
  • Original MSRP: $80
  • Release Date: October 4, 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

The Lian Li Lancool 207 is the new best-performing case on our thermal charts -- and it’s $80. The case shoves the power supply to the front to accommodate 2 shroud-top fans that are closer to the floor of the case, providing intake directly into the GPU. The front of the case has a shaped front inlet for 2x 140mm fans cooling the rest, and the back is entirely ventilation to allow exhaust. 

From a usability perspective, it struggles in some key and basic areas: Cable management is challenging. Closing the right side panel isn’t always easy, especially if you have more cables, thicker gauge wire and sleeving, or accessories that add a ton of cabling. The side panel is tool-less and the back compartment is shallow, with the PSU’s orientation complicating power supply length and cable bends.

Editor's note: This was originally published on October 4, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing, Writing

Patrick Lathan

Testing

Mike Gaglione

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


The Lancool 207 is an exercise in compromise, but some of those compromises didn’t need to exist.

We’re reviewing the Lancool 207 with our new case testing methodology. Previous Lancool cases were similarly priced and also heavily competitive for thermals. Repeating that price in 2024, with the gradual climb of pricing for everything, shows a highly aggressive Lian Li.

The new Lancool 207’s $80 MSRP comes close to the (originally) $70 Lancool 215 that impressed us back in 2020.

We saw the 207 at Computex earlier this year. We've spotted a few changes to the case since that Computex showing: the weird removable plate at the bottom of the front panel is gone, the bottom intake fans are conventional rather than reverse-blade, and the side panel vent is smaller. None of these changes are meaningful from a consumer perspective. The removable plate never had an assigned function other than to possibly be “DLC” add-ons, the bottom intake fans look basically the same, and the functional area of the side vent hasn't changed.

Lian Li Lancool 207 Specs

Dimensions (DxWxH)455.6mm x 219mm x 456mm
ColorBlack / White
Motherboard SupportATX (Width = 240mm) / Micro-ATX / Mini-ITX
Expansion Slot7
Storage2 x 3.5” HDD or 2.5″ SSD
GPU Length Clearance410 mm
CPU Cooler Height Clearance167 mm
PSU SupportATX (Under 160mm)
Radiator SupportTop: 240mm / 280mm/ 360mm
Fan SupportFront: 140mm x 2 (pre-installed)Top: 120mm x 3 or 140mm x 2Bottom: 120mm x 2 (pre-installed)Rear: 120mm x 1
Dust FilterBottom x 1
I/O PortsUSB 3.0 x 2USB 3.1 Type C x 1Audio x 1Power Button x 1
MSRPBlack - US$79.99White - US$84.99

Specs copied from manufacturer materials, please read review for our own measurements and opinions

We like the Lancool 207, and we have a lot of good things to say about it, but we consider the power supply situation to be plagued with oversights. Overall, we’re positive -- so we’ll start with the basics and positives, then spend some serious time talking about the unfortunate cable management and power supply situation.

For the basics: The case pulls apart in 3 primary panels, including the typical left and right sides and a lower quarter-panel that is perforated for intake into what would traditionally be the PSU shroud. Rather than elevating the floor and pulling through that, Lian Li pulls through the rear and sides. This allows the floor to be available for hard drives and SSDs. Even with a 3.5” drive installed, there’s still plenty of room between it and the sunken fans to pull air through.

The panels are also exceptionally sturdy for a case of its price. The top panel snaps into place with heavy-duty studs and uses folded-over columns of steel to reinforce it. This avoids that cheap stamped steel wobble we see on some sub-$100 cases -- and on Corsair’s $200+ 6500 cases

This also appears to be a direct response to issues we found with the Lancool 216, where there was around a half-a-centimeter depression in the top panel. They’ve fixed that issue here.

The front panel also uses a folded-over steel, which doubles as a catch for the magnets at the top of the easily removable filter. This should make it trivial to clean. We’ve always been advocates for ultra-fine mesh panels rather than dust filters, as these serve the same purpose as a dust filter, but are much better for airflow. 

The entire front panel can be removed, but there's no reason to do so. If you do it anyway, the I/O cables have been screwed down to the corner of the panel for strain relief. 

The porosity on the back of the case is also at insane levels for mostly good reasons: We typically see much smaller holes with thicker steel, resulting in a lot less breathability. Because this case is fully positive pressure, we don’t need to worry much about dust ingress from the rear of the case. It’ll get pushed out naturally. This shows an attention to detail that illustrates Lian Li actually understands why you’d make decisions like denser holes for intake and wider for exhaust. 

There is one missed point, though: The very bottom of the rear of the case will serve as intake, not exhaust, as it is separately chambered for the shroud-top fans. Lian Li should be filtering these or using ultra-fine mesh.

Overall, Lian Li has come a long way since we criticized some of its older cases for airflow and is really starting to show a mastery of thermal design with the small details.

The only fit-and-finish issue we noticed were some imperfections and scratches in the infinity mirror fan hubs, but these aren't visible while the fans are spinning.

The motherboard tray is offset from the standard, creating an ATX-sized indent. This means that the case is absolutely not compatible with any so-called “E-ATX” boards and that there's only about 1cm of clearance behind the motherboard tray, but it also means that compatibility with motherboard edge connectors is excellent. Lian Li also claims that the offset better aligns the GPU with the bottom intake fans, but cable routing is the more tangible benefit.

Front I/O is extremely basic: 2x USB 3.0 Type-A ports, 1x USB 3.1 Type-C port, 1x audio jack, and the power button. The flat, flexible Type-C cable in particular is the least annoying one we've ever worked with. The case also has a convenient all-in-one front panel connector, but we'd actually rather have the old-fashioned two-pin connector here, since it's just for the power button. There is no reset button. Typically, these would combine power, reset, and power LED.

The case has two vibration-damped drive mounts in the floor for a single 3.5” or 2.5” drive each. The drive mounting holes are suboptimal: SATA cables have to be bent at an uncomfortable angle to fit and the 2.5" mounting holes could easily have been moved to alleviate this. 

Each pair of fans has 1x four-pin fan connector and 1x three-pin ARGB connector, and the two fans within each pair are linked by proprietary connectors. We'll begrudgingly accept this as a compromise since it cuts the number of fan cables in half. The downside is that it's impractical to replace or reconfigure individual fans, contributing to a larger downside of having to go through Lian Li for replacements if one breaks. The front and bottom mounts aren't compatible with any sizes other than the ones that are preinstalled (140mm front, 120mm bottom). On top of that, the front mount is built around Lian Li's 30mm-thick fans, and all four stock fans are attached with radiator screws. If you still want to replace any, Lian Li includes 16 additional screws sized for 25mm-thick fans. All of this is non-standard and will be unfamiliar to experienced builders. It’s workable, but it will impose atypical limitations on fan compatibility if you want to change them. For instance, you’d typically have 120mm options where 140mm fans install. Here, that’s not the case. The upside is that there’s one less set of rails obstructing intake at the cost of flexibility, so Lian Li is going for the focused airflow approach.

Lian Li describes the 207 as a "compact M-ATX-sized case with ATX compatibility," which is only true by Lian Li standards. The Lancool 207 is the size of a normal mid-tower; it has almost exactly the same dimensions as a Fractal North. In fact, it’s really not much different than most of the cases in the comparison image above. The SilverStone 515XR is an example of a truly compact ATX case, or the Easy-Bake Cooler Master Q500L.

Now to the power supply:

The 207 has an unusual layout with the PSU rotated 90 degrees and placed at the front of the case rather than the rear. This means that there's a 160mm size limit for PSUs, but even our normal 150mm unit was cramped. Without dropping out of the ATX spec, 150mm is about the smallest you’ll typically get.

Because of the rotation, cables are pointed at the tool-less side panel and have to bend sharply to route. Using flat cables helps, but this is a situation where you’ll need to consider how the cables in your power supply are sleeved. We’d also strongly recommend sticking to 150mm rather than using the maximum 160mm under the spec. We’d also strongly recommend modular power supplies for this case.

The PSU shroud is effectively a fan mount, and even if you could find a way to stick extra cables under it, it'd interfere with the intake fans and the entire point of the design. 

All of this would only be an inconvenience, except that the steel side panel is tooless. If you're using bulkier cables with individually braided sleeves like in our example, it is possible to choose power supply and cable combinations that make it nearly impossible to snugly close the side panel. It’s possible, and we did it with our bulky sleeved cables to prove that, but this took a good amount of time to manage and flatten.

We’d strongly recommend flat cables like the ones shown in the 207 at Computex. The more accessories and PCIe power cables you run, the more difficulty you’ll have managing the cables in this particular case. 

Screws for the side panel would have helped this by allowing more tolerance for cable bulge. 

The manual illustrates installing a Lian Li EDGE PSU, which looks like it could help; however, the 207 is $80, and the cheapest EDGE PSUs cost at least $130 to $140. It’s a mismatch of the most likely buyer for the case if Lian Li expects most to use these power supplies.

The illustration also shows the EDGE PSU being installed fan-side-up, which isn't an officially supported option for other power supplies. The usual arrangement of mounting holes requires installing standard ATX PSUs fan-down in the 207, with only 1cm of clearance above the table.

In another major concern, in Lian Li’s quest to move the power supply, it has overlooked both cabling and cooling considerations. With the bottom filter installed, which we’ll come back to, the power supply is given mere millimeters to breathe with a bottom-oriented fan. We don’t currently run power supply thermals during our testing; however, this will cause the power supply to heat up, objectively, and it may result in the PSU fan running at a higher RPM (if it is a power supply that bases fan speed on any internal temperatures).

Removing the filter functionally doubles its breathing room, but ultimately, we think this is a major design shortcoming. Lian Li’s pursuit of minimizing the case size has limited its area for power supply intake. This is making us consider running a thermocouple wire to our power supply for future case reviews.

The PSU filter is another small design fault: It’s easiest to lift the case to remove the filter, which isn’t a dealbreaker, but could be fixed with a more accessible tab. 

On the cable management side on the back of the case, the attachment points for the built-in velcro straps are angled so that the straps curl over as they're inserted, which is a much bigger quality of life improvement than it sounds like. The manual describes intended cable paths, most of which are obvious, but there are specific routes for 24-pin STRIMER cables and for CPU 8-pin cables. The 8-pins are held in by plastic hooks, but the hooks might work better if they were flipped. There isn't a suggested path for GPU power cables in the manual. This is something we would have liked to see for new builders.

As for vertical GPUs, the expansion slots are bridgeless, so other vertical GPU add-in kits may work, but Lian Li specifically markets its universal 4-slot bracket. As demonstrated at Computex, using this vertical bracket will block the bottom intake fans, and we don't recommend it. 

It may technically be possible to get a 280mm radiator installed in the front of the case, but it'd need to have exactly the right hole placement. Lian Li doesn't claim any formal radiator support anywhere except the top of the case, and we agree. 120mm-wide rads fit more easily than 140mm-wide ones, which may make the CPU power cutouts difficult to reach.

Lian Li Lancool 207 Thermals

Grab a GN Tear-Down Toolkit to support our AD-FREE reviews and IN-DEPTH testing while also getting a high-quality, highly portable 10-piece toolkit that was custom designed for use with video cards for repasting and water block installation. Includes a portable roll bag, hook hangers for pegboards, a storage compartment, and instructional GPU disassembly cards.

As we've covered, it's inconvenient and pointless to replace the 207's stock fans. Still, we had a couple of alternate configurations we wanted to test that didn't involve altering the fans. We also did a pass with the small mesh section on the steel side panel taped off. The bottom intake fans have a larger section of mesh available on the other side of the case, as well as a wide-open vent at the rear, so we suspected that taping off this little vent wouldn't matter much.

The 207 is one of the cheapest cases on our charts currently. Out of our recent reviews, it lands between the $100 SilverStone 514X and the $68 515XR. We also retested the older Lancool 216, which is still available for around $100. In terms of fan layout, the 207 is most similar to the more expensive Antec Flux Pro.

We only ran basic tests in "standard mode" on the 216. There's also an "air cooling mode," but in our original review, we found that this helped GPU thermals while simultaneously hurting CPU thermals with our bench hardware. Check our Lancool 216 review for more detail on alternate configurations, including an external fan bracket attached to the back of the case.

GPU Full Load Thermals - Noise-Normalized

The 207 is a loud case with all fans at full speed, but we'll start with noise normalized results. For this testing, all case fans are lowered to reach a target noise level of 27 dBA measured at 1 meter in our hemi-anechoic chamber, with CPU and GPU fan speeds controlled and constant. 

We’ll start with noise-normalized GPU thermals since those bottom fans should help there.

The GPU temperature averaged 42 degrees above ambient, 47 on the memory, and 55 hotspot. That's one degree better than the 216 in each category, but still close. Impressively, the Fractal Torrent remains the leader in this particular test. That’s not always true, but it is here. It has its own bottom intake fans that feed the GPU directly, which help. 

We haven't always seen a benefit from shroud-top intake fans, but cases like the 207 and the Flux Pro that commit to building the case around that concept do show good results. If anything, it's a testament to the 216's cooling that it comes so close to the 207 without any shroud fans.

The Antec Flux Pro's average GPU temperature was about one degree cooler than the 207's.

There's no contest versus the 514X and 515XR, which fall on the complete opposite end of the chart. The 207 is in a different class in many ways, but Lian Li has priced it so aggressively that we have to make the comparison; it undercuts the 514X and is only $12 over the 515XR.

Fractal’s Pop Air is another price-competitive case, but lands at the bottom of this chart. It’s still a good case, and when it’s one sale, it is impressively cheap, but the 207 is thermally superior.

CPU Full Load Thermals - Noise-Normalized

Here’s the CPU noise-normalized chart: Instantly, the Lancool 207 is tied for chart leader in CPU thermals. The average all-core CPU temperature was 41 degrees Celsius above ambient and 44 degrees on just the P-cores. The 216's numbers round differently, but its results were near-identical to the 207's and within error. The 216 was one of our all-time best performers for noise-normalized CPU cooling when we originally reviewed it, so that's good news for the 207. The 207 technically tops our updated chart within error of the 216, but the Antec Flux Pro is also within a one-degree margin. The Flux Pro is at least $180, though.

In comparison to the more closely price-matched 514X at 48 degrees all-core and 515XR at 53 degrees all-core, the 207 has a massive lead. So far, the 207 looks like another Lancool with an unbeatable price-to-performance ratio.

CPU Full Load Thermals - Full Speed

At full speed, the 207 sounds like a server rack. The 41.6dBA result ties the 216. The 216 is the best performer when allowed to brute force its performance by fan speed, roughly tying the 207 when we remove its front panel to test restrictions. With the panel, the 207 ran at 41.6 degrees for P-cores, or about 2 degrees warmer than without a front panel. As far as restrictions go, that’s pretty good: The panel is not substantially hurting performance, unlike some other cases we’ve tested. If you buy the optional filter, that would change. 

Using two layers of gaffer tape over the small mesh section on the steel panel would affect GPU thermals if anything, so it's no surprise that it had no effect on CPU thermals.

The 207 at 41.6 degrees ties the Flux Pro for performance. Again, though, the noise normalized results are better for case-to-case comparison.

GPU Full Load Thermals - Full Speed

Now for GPU temperatures at full speed. In the same test, the GPU was 38 degrees above ambient. Taping the side panel vent did nothing. We think this is simply because the bottom intake fans have plenty of other ventilation available through the mesh on the opposite side of the shroud and the wide-open unfiltered vent at the rear of the case. If these inlets had been minimized, it might have mattered more. It still doesn’t hurt to have more mesh in these areas, especially if you shove drives down there, but it just didn’t matter for our GPU.

GPU thermals effectively tied the Flux Pro, but with some back-and-forth over the memory and hotspot temperatures. No matter what, though, the 207 sits alongside the Torrent and Flux Pro at the top of this chart. The 216 fell behind here with an average GPU temperature of 43 degrees above ambient, which is still excellent, but not as good as the brute-force bottom intake of the 207.

GPU Full Load Thermals - Standardized Fans

Our standardized fan tests use three Noctua fans, always the same ones: two 140mm front intake, and one 120mm rear exhaust, all at 100% speed. We regularly explain the limitations of this testing. You can learn more in our methodology piece here. This allows us to remove stock fans as a variable and compare just the enclosures. With cases like the 207, the comparison is theoretical (since it doesn't make any sense to replace the stock fans), but people request it, so we wanted to provide the data.

Our standard fan configuration was obviously worse for GPU thermals than the stock configuration. With the standard fans, average GPU temperature was 43 degrees above ambient, 48 degrees for the memory, and 56 degrees for hotspot. 

CPU Full Load Thermals - Standardized Fans

On the CPU with standardized fans, we measured CPU temperatures at 38 degrees above ambient all-core and 42 degrees for the P-cores, within error of the top-scoring Torrent. Mesh fronted cases with straightforward front-to-back airflow patterns do well in this test, and the 207's CPU thermals are particularly good because the front fan slots are biased high, sending more air above the level of the GPU backplate. We usually try to position the intake fans for a better balance with GPU thermals, but that's not an option in the 207.

VRM & RAM Full Load Thermals - Noise-Normalized

The VRM and system memory are located close to the CPU in our test system, so it makes sense that a case with good CPU thermals would have good thermals in those two categories as well. The 207 slightly outperformed the Flux Pro for lowest memory temperature at 21 degrees above ambient, tied with the Torrent. VRM was tied with the Flux Pro at 27 degrees, but that's tied at the top of the chart. The 216 was warmer for both sensors, 23 degrees for the system memory and 28 for VRM.

Lian Li Lancool 207 Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Like the Lancool 215 and 216, the Lancool 207 is a well-built case with chart-topping performance while simultaneously managing to be one of the cheapest cases on our charts. The cases that perform equivalently are more expensive, like the Flux Pro, and the cases that are in the same general price category perform worse, like the 514X. Lian Li already has some strong competition in this area, including its own 216, but the 207 is even cheaper than the 216.

Phanteks has its new cases from Computex coming out soon and those should give the 207 some competition, but they’re not here yet -- and they might end up a little more expensive, but we’re not sure yet.

The Fractal Pop Air remains a good quality ultra-cheap case when it’s on sale, which has been frequently lately, but it’s just a totally different class of performance. The 207 holds the new crown for the best performance for the price -- nothing else that we’ve tested anytime recently is even close when you factor in the price. Lian Li’s 216 is the closest competitor, but is frequently around $100, making it $20 more expensive than the 207.

The biggest problem with the 207 is the cable management and power supply fit: The problem with getting the side panel on over the PSU is potentially a huge obstacle for some cable-heavy or thicker cable configurations and is not shared by any of the other cases we've mentioned. If you buy this case, we recommend choosing a 150mm deep PSU rather than 160 and opting for slimmer cables. Depending on your PSU and the cables you use, there's a serious risk that the side panel won't fit and you'll get annoyed enough to send the case back. Flat, slim cables have a better chance of working.

This is its only major issue that we encountered. Build quality of the panels is overall excellent, especially at the price, and thermal performance is among the best. The 207 gets a strong, but caveated recommendation, with the caveat again being related to cable management (especially for less experienced builders). If you plan ahead and have patience to thoroughly route cables, and if you can stick to a shorter PSU, we think this case is one of the most competitive on the market for its price. There aren’t a lot of well-built options in this price class.


GN Mega Charts: CPU Benchmarks & Comparison

14 octobre 2024 à 00:20
GN Mega Charts: CPU Benchmarks & ComparisonLelldorianx October 13, 2024

CPU benchmarks & comparisons across multiple generations for gaming and productivity tasks

The Highlights

  • This data has been collected from our CPU reviews and benchmarks
  • The data includes important caveats and disclosures relating to vetting processes for long-term support charts
  • You can more easily determine if your CPU is in the list with Ctrl+F. The table at the bottom lists all CPUs detailed in at least one chart.
  • This is a large, ongoing effort and will get updates at this URL permanently
  • Please consider supporting this effort on our store

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Intro

This article is an entry in our GN Mega Charts series. All Mega Charts are listed on the Features page, including these:

This section contains disclaimers, limitations of the process, and disclosures relating to data quality control. We think that this is all important for your understanding of how this page works and so that you can adjust your own expectations and potential reliance on the data to calibrate with the two groups (“Active” and “LTS”); however, if you’d like to just jump straight to the charts and ignore all of that, you may bypass the wall of text and auto-scroll down with this link.

This article contains our ‘Mega Charts’ for CPU performance benchmarks, including our production tests (commonly referred to as “creation” benchmarks) and gaming tests. Our power testing can be found on the above-linked page and is isolated, as it tends to be more static.

This page will be regularly updated with the latest of our CPU benchmark performance numbers. It will consist of two types of charts: Long-Term Support (“LTS”) and Active. The long-term support charts have several special caveats, but are intended to be available to help people better determine upgrade paths. The LTS charts are more likely to contain older CPU results.

The page also includes links to CPU reviews and comparisons, such as historical AMD vs. Intel benchmarks. It will be updated on a slower cadence from our latest reviews (so you should always defer to those for the most recent numbers), but will be updated a few times a year with larger charts than are found in our reviews. This is for a few reasons, but one is that we shorten review charts due to video height limitations (16:9 aspect ratio). The other is that it’s just too crowded for the regular updates.

This page is intended to be used long-term for our Mega Charts. You can bookmark this page, as our future updates for CPU Mega Charts will land at this same URL. The update log will be posted at the bottom of the page so that you always know the latest data set. It will be updated a couple times a year, with more frequency updates in the CPU reviews themselves.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing

Patrick Lathan
Mike Gaglione


How to Use This

Even as data ages, it is often still relevant for comparison -- particularly for older CPUs which mostly stop receiving performance-affecting changes, such as microcode updates or Windows patches. We are constantly re-running our CPU tests to keep data fresh, but unfortunately, this refresh cycle means that it is difficult to stack more CPUs on the charts before some sort of major change comes in. For example, major Windows updates necessitate full re-tests for reviews, but may not be as important for someone who just wants to see their older CPU represented for a “good enough” gauge of where things fall.

That’s why we split these into the LTS (Long-Term Support) and Active charts. It allows us to maintain one older dataset that has more CPUs represented, at the cost of reduced insights gained from our most modern test methods. Active gives you that for more of a modern head-to-head. It’s the difference between precision (Active) and quantity of CPUs (LTS). This is the best balance that a small team can produce, especially since we provide this website completely ad-free (you can support us on Patreon or by buying something useful for your PC builds on our store).

Current Best CPUs (Generalized Recommendations)

The below is a simple list of CPUs that, at the time of writing (dated in the columns below), we think make sense or would make sense with caveats noted.

Pay careful attention to the second column. We may only recommend some parts under certain pricing conditions. Generally speaking, we do not recommend buying CPUs above MSRP. They come down pretty regularly, especially with launch cycles. For instance, when we first posted this, the 7800X3D was about $250 overpriced. It's still on the list so that people are aware of it, but we advise waiting for it to approach that MSRP marker or to be replaced with the pending 9000X3D parts.

For a better and more thorough list of Best CPUs, please check our Best CPUs of 2023 article. We will update for 2024 also.

CPUReason for RecommendationRelease DatePlatformDate of RecommendationGN Original Review*
AMD R7 7800X3DThe original launch price was $450. We don't recommend buying much above that. Depending on price (fluctuates), this is the best gaming part at the time of writing. It is sometimes the best value gaming part. At the time of writing, value is terrible -- it lands on this list only with the note that you should wait and see. Also, 9000X3D may be around the corner.2023AM5October 13, 2024R7 7800X3D Review
AMD R7 5700X3DThis is often the best-value drop-in upgrade for AM4 platforms to give a major gaming performance boost without a totally new system. The 5800X3D would be best, but runs higher price.2024AM4October 13, 2024R7 5700X3D Review
Intel i9-12900KAt the time of writing this, the CPU has a $100 discount code that lands it at $260, which is very good value. The usual listing price is $360 at time of writing, but you'd be buying into an abandoned platform.2021LGA 1700October 13, 202412900K Review
AMD Threadripper 7980XFor extremely core-intensive tasks that could benefit from the increased capabilities of an HEDT platform (more RAM, more cores), the 7980X remains overall unbeatable. You can check our review for more details.2023TRX50October 13, 2024TR 7980X Review
Intel i3-12100FAlder Lake has been a time-tested architecture without major concerns. The 12100F is frequently one of the cheapest new CPUs (if not buying used) that can still play most games well. It has severe limits in some games. This is not particularly strong, but is affordable and often acceptable as a compromise.2022LGA 1700October 13, 202412100F Review
NotesWe are posting this just ahead of Arrow Lake, so we may add some Intel recommendations to this list. Check back in a few weeks to a month to see if this has changed. The older Intel stuff is on here for its price benefit, but with the proximity of Arrow Lake, we'd generally advise waiting a few weeks rather than committing to a dead platform with the more expensive CPUs (such as 14th Series)

Is Your CPU Missing From This Data? Here’s What to Do

We frequently receive questions from people asking where their particular CPU would land on a chart. There are thousands of CPUs that could be tested, so we obviously don’t have all of those listed. The best bet is to approximate the positioning by just thinking through the data that is present and using deductive reasoning. Newer builders may not realize that it is often this simple, so we’ll outline some concepts so that you can at least get a rough idea of where your part might fall. You can apply this to any reviewer’s charts. And of course, if we’re missing a part, there are plenty of qualified reviewers out there who may have something we’re missing (and we likewise try to cover what they miss) -- that’s the value of multiple qualified reviewers.

CPU Performance Interpolation/Deductive Reasoning Examples

Example 1: The Ryzen 5 1600AF is not present on the charts.

Solution: The Ryzen 5 1600AF is functionally an R5 2600, just at slightly different clocks. Looking up original reviews would get you this information, which you can then apply to modern charts. Looking at the R5 2600 in a chart is close enough to the R5 1600AF that you could base your decisions off of that part.

Example 2: The Ryzen 5 2600 is also missing from the charts.

Solution: Pull up a few old/original reviews of the R5 2600 and identify parts that are nearby or adjacent in performance. Look at a few charts, as some games can differ. Once you have found the most commonly comparable part, you can use that as a rough gauge on charts.

Example 3: The i7-10700K is missing from the charts.

Solution: If the i5-10600K and i9-10900K are present, it’s reasonable to assume that the 10700K is between them. Although this can have a relatively wide range, the reality is that, especially upgrading from something older, it won’t matter enough to hurt decision making on new processor purchases (since anything will be a huge upgrade).

Example 4: The Sandy Bridge i7-2600K is present, but not the i7-2700K

Solution: In situations such as these, where the part is basically just a slight change (example: 2700X vs. 2700, 2600X vs. 2600, 7700X vs 7700), you can just look at the one that is present and assume close enough performance to compare. This is again where it’s important to keep perspective: If the goal is to upgrade, being 2-5% off on the estimate isn’t going to meaningfully impact decisions if the alternative is no good modern data as reviewers move on.

As a last-ditch solution: You can look at games or benchmarks which are least likely suspected to have had major patches, such as GTA V, and calculate the percent difference between the target part and mutually present part on both an older chart and the new one. Then apply this to the modern chart to approximate or interpolate the rank. For example, if you pull up a chart from two years ago with the 8700K and 12700K on it and calculate the difference (typically, (new - old) / old), you can then apply that on the same game chart from modern times. This is the least perfect method because newer games may have architecturally evolved and may not be linear and older games get patches. You’d frankly be better off finding it somewhere else on the internet, but if you really can’t, this is a method that helps get at least something to work with.

DISCLAIMER: Data Accuracy Standards & Reduced Vetting Practices

For standalone reviews that receive full video treatment, we run through a quality control process that is intensive and often takes several days to complete. These are time-intensive, cost-intensive, and critical to the accuracy of our mainline reviews. We would never skip steps for the fully produced reviews.

But we want to publish more of the data we collect outside of the reviews process because it’d help people with purchasing decisions. We have been resistant to publishing the extra data because the ‘extra’ data doesn’t go through the same validation processes. It’s still useful and rarely has issues; however, our QC standards are high and we are careful with what we release. Anything we’re uncertain of or haven’t vetted fully is withheld until it clears those bars. 

But a lot of people would benefit from knowing where an AMD R7 1700 lands today, and outside of full revisits, we don’t have a good avenue to release data that is useful, likely up to our usual standards, but just not quadruple-checked. That’s what the Long-Term Support (LTS) charts are for. 

We’ve decided to release the extra data to try and cast a wide net to help people upgrading from older or more obscure parts, but are doing so with the upfront disclosure that the difference between the Active charts and the LTS charts is the validation process. In other words, data which exists on LTS charts but not Active charts should be understood by the audience as more likely to have some sort of data confidence issue or possible deviation from expected results. It is still unlikely, but more likely than Active charts. With that transparency and understanding, here’s the difference in our processes:

Active Chart Vetting Process

One of our biggest hangups for publishing a full list of our “Mega Charts” for CPUs has been that we simply cannot sustain the intensive QC process for a secondary dataset that contains CPUs that haven’t been published on the channel recently. We often still collect data for older CPUs, but may not publish it for time reasons (meaning that it was collected for internal review, but not fully vetted for publication). 

Here’s the full process, with some specialty confidential steps removed:

  • The Test Lead for the tests (typically Steve) establishes a strict SOP for the test suite to ensure data consistency. The Test Lead also determines which software is tested, performs benchmark analysis for standard deviation and consistency, and determines the testing methodology
  • The Test Lead (typically Steve) establishes a Test Matrix containing all CPUs to be tested, which tests they get, and data exporting practices
  • The Subject Matter Expert (Patrick) builds software in collaboration with Steve for the test suite and builds the operating system configurations, establishing a “pre-flight checklist” for testing
  • The Technician who runs the tests (primarily Mike, with assistance from Patrick and Steve and occasionally Jeremy) will check the results for correct resolution, correct settings, captures that prove the test completed correctly, image quality, and general errors. The technician performs re-runs as needed
  • The Subject Matter Expert performs a secondary quality control pass on data. Any data which looks suspect of a bad pass, which requires manual filtering & removal prior to retests, will be deleted and flagged for the technician to rerun
  • The Technician performs re-tests and then re-evaluates the results
  • The Subject Matter Expert reviews them again. They are typically resolved at this stage and occasionally rejected entirely to move forward
  • A Writer & Technician (typically Jeremy) performs a full pass on CPU export names, the hierarchical stack of the data and whether the hierarchy makes sense, and identifies potential areas where additional data may be necessary to confidently come to conclusions, then passes it to Steve. If Steve authorizes any of the re-evaluations from the Writer & Technician, they go back to the lab again for testing.
  • Steve performs final intensive review, including running a variety of formulae for data consistency and evaluating results against archival results for consistency of scaling
  • The Writer & Technician double-checks the finals. Any disagreement with what Steve passed is voiced and revisited. Once both are in agreement that it makes sense (or the suspect data is removed until validated), the data is sent to publication
  • The video editor, who is often technical enough to identify obvious oversights, performs a ‘passive’ QC while editing and flags any issues. If any are found, they go through Steve for review, analysis, and either sign-off as accurate or correction

You’ll notice that a big part of the process is passing the results through multiple team members -- typically 4-5 people look at it before publishing. This is slow, but important. 

Long-Term Support Chart Vetting Process

The Long-Term Support charts will contain data which is not in reviews, but was used as internal gauges for where parts should sensically land. As a result, this is the process it has followed since it has not previously been published:

  • (Same) The Team Lead for the tests (typically Steve) establishes a strict SOP for the test suite to ensure data consistency. The Team Lead also determines which software is tested, performs benchmark analysis for standard deviation and consistency, and determines the testing methodology
  • (Same) The Team Lead (typically Steve) establishes a Test Matrix containing all CPUs to be tested, which tests they get, and data exporting practices
  • (Same) The Subject Matter Expert (Patrick) builds software in collaboration with Steve for the test suite and builds the operating system configurations, establishing a “pre-flight checklist” for testing
  • (Same) The Technician who runs the tests (primarily Mike, with assistance from Patrick and Steve and occasionally Jeremy) will check the results for correct resolution, correct settings, captures that prove the test completed correctly, image quality, and general errors. The technician performs re-runs as needed
  • (Removed) The Subject Matter Expert performs a secondary quality control pass on data. Any data which looks suspect of a bad pass, which requires manual filtering & removal prior to retests, will be deleted and flagged for the technician to rerun
  • (Removed) The Technician performs re-tests and then re-evaluates the results
  • (Removed) The Subject Matter Expert reviews them again. They are typically resolved at this stage and occasionally rejected entirely to move forward
  • (Removed) A Writer & Technician (typically Jeremy) performs a full pass on CPU export names, the hierarchical stack of the data and whether the hierarchy makes sense, and identifies potential areas where additional data may be necessary to confidently come to conclusions, then passes it to Steve
  • (Removed) Steve performs final intensive review, including running a variety of formulae for data consistency and evaluating results against archival results for consistency of scaling
  • (Removed) The Writer & Technician double-checks the finals. Any disagreement with what Steve passed is voiced and revisited. Once both are in agreement that it makes sense (or the suspect data is removed until validated), the data is sent to publication
  • (Removed) The video editor, who is often technical enough to identify obvious oversights, performs a ‘passive’ QC while editing and flags any issues. If any are found, they go through Steve for review, analysis, and either sign-off as accurate or correction
  • (New) Steve performs final quick review, including ad-hoc comparisons between CPUs from which we have a known relative % scaling, to rapidly vet additional information. Data with low confidence is removed rather than investigated. Not every single data point is inspected, unlike reviews

This allows the team to continue work on important next reviews without forcing us to skip more important upcoming projects, but still allows us to get helpful data out. You’ll notice that this approach cuts at least 2 potential internal reviewers from the process, including reducing the amount of times the SME looks over the data, and reduces the review of every single data point down to ad-hoc glances to see if anything “jumps out” as obviously bad.

If you see anything that looks out of order, you are welcome to email us at team at gamersnexus dot net.

We are hopeful that this will allow us to publish more data to help people make upgrade decisions, with a middle-ground understanding going into it as to the limitations of the process.

With all the helpful information on how to use these charts and the disclosures out of the way, let’s continue to the data set.

Long-Term Support CPU Charts (1H24)

LTS DATA SET: Zen 5 Review Cycle (pre-Arrow Lake)

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

The below CPU charts are those found from our long-term support list. These will be updated only a few times a year, but contain the most data for some of the older CPUs.

Production Benchmarks

This section contains the “production” benchmarks for workstation, creation, and development applications.

Blender 3D Rendering on the CPU

The above chart ranks CPU 3D rendering performance in Blender by best to worst (faster, or lower time, is better). This should help you identify the best CPUs for rendering in 2024; however, GPUs are heavily relied upon and would be a separate benchmark.

7-Zip File Compression & Decompression Benchmarks

The above charts contain our tests for 7-Zip file compression and decompression. If you frequently work with compressing and decompressing data, such as for large file transfers in compressed formats or for certain game loading tasks, these will give an idea for performance.

Adobe Premiere Video Editing & Rendering CPU Benchmarks

This chart uses the Puget Suite to benchmark Adobe Premiere for video editing and rendering tasks, focusing on CPU performance. Adobe Premiere cares both about the CPU and the GPU, and relies upon a strong combination (rather than biasing toward one component, like 3D rendering might do) for reduced scrubbing or playback ‘lag’ and improved rendering and encode performance.

Adobe Photoshop CPU Benchmarks & Comparison

This chart is for Adobe Photoshop and compares some of the best CPUs currently out for Photoshop. Testing is done with the Puget Suite and includes warps, transforms, scales, filters, and file manipulation.

Chromium Code Compile CPU Benchmarks

This chart looks at a Chromium code compile. It’s a CPU benchmark for programmers and developers, with the caveat that (like any of these tests), we can’t realistically represent all compile scenarios. Because we try to represent a wide range of possible use cases, we don’t cater too much to any one specialty. This should give you an idea for at least how this specific compile behaves. If your workloads resemble this, you may be able to assume some level of linearity.

Buy a GN 4-Pack of PC-themed 3D Coasters! These high-quality, durable, flexible coasters ship in a pack of 4, each with a fully custom design made by GN's team. You'll get a motherboard-themed coaster with debug display & reset buttons, a SATA SSD with to-scale connectors, RAM sticks, and a GN logo. These fund our web work! Buy here.

Gaming CPU Benchmarks & Best CPUs

Even if your specific game isn’t represented here, the best way to use our charts for determining CPU differences is to look at the relative ranking across a number of games. Our intent with this approach is that you can determine the best-value upgrade (our reviews are very value-oriented) by comparing the typical or average gap between two parts.

In most scenarios, the CPUs will scale similarly from game-to-game, barring any unique behaviors of a particular game. If CPU A is better value in Game A, B, and C, it is very likely also better value in Game D (though not always). 

For individual per-game benchmarks, we’d recommend our Game Benchmarks section that deep-dives on new releases whenever we get a chance.

Dragon’s Dogma 2 CPU Benchmarks

This is for Dragon’s Dogma 2, which is one of the newest games in our CPU test suite. Dragon’s Dogma 2 is still getting regular updates, so the CPUs shown on this chart were all run on the same game version. The game remains CPU-heavy in the cities with dense NPC populations, which is where we test. We published a separate deep-dive benchmark of Dragon's Dogma 2 here.

Stellaris Simulation Time CPU Comparison

This chart evaluates simulation time in Stellaris using a late game save file. The number is represented in time, with lower being better. Faster simulation (shorter time required) is noticeable in 4X or Grand Campaign / Grand Strategy games where AI turn processing requires significant CPU effort. 

Baldur’s Gate 3 CPU Benchmarks

Baldur’s Gate 3 is tested at 1080p/Medium in the above chart, which allows us to see CPU scaling all the way up to the top of the stack for the best gaming CPUs.

We test in Act III in the city itself, near a market with a lot of NPCs.

F1 2024 1080p & 1440p CPU Benchmarks

This chart gallery is for F1 24 and includes both 1080p and 1440p results. Typically, in scenarios which remain primarily CPU-bound, we see roughly the same hierarchical lineup across both resolutions. The top of the chart truncates maximum FPS, which means that CPUs which occasionally bounce off of the GPU bottleneck will be less reliable to differentiate from one another (as they are externally bound).

FFXIV: Dawntrail CPU Benchmarks (1080p & 1440p)

This set of 1080p & 1440p charts is for Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail, tested at Maximum quality settings.

Rainbow Six Siege CPU Benchmarks

Rainbow Six Siege is a problematic benchmark as it updates frequently, causing entire wipes of our dataset. This is a list of results that were all run on the same game version. Unfortunately, we don’t have as much data for it as a result of the regular wipeout.

Starfield CPU Comparison

This chart is for Bethesda’s Starfield at 1080p/Low. Despite the game’s memeable launch, it remains a useful benchmark for CPU performance comparisons.

Total War: Warhammer III CPU Benchmarks

This gives us a look at a Grand Strategy / Grand Campaign Total War game, which tend to be CPU heavy. We’re using a battle for the benchmark.

Active CPU Benchmark Charts

ACTIVE DATA SET: AMD R9 9900X CPU Review

Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!

The below list of charts is our most heavily-vetted, most recently-published data set. Due to maintenance overhead and our focus on new content, we won’t updated it after every single review, but we will update this upload after major review cycles are fully complete. For example, if both AMD and Intel are launching CPUs across a 2-3 month spread, we’ll update this list at the end when we can breathe again.

These will lack some of the data found on the LTS charts; however, they may contain more recent data (such as newer CPUs).

There may be discrepancies between the LTS and Active charts. They are not necessarily comparable, and often are not. This is for reasons such as Windows version differences, game updates, and test platform changes.

Active Charts: Production

Rather than individually break them out into headings like above, we’ll just dump all the production charts below:

Active Charts: Gaming Benchmarks

And the same for gaming. You can find each game at the top of the chart:

CPUs Present on These Charts & Their Reviews

This table includes a simplified list of all CPUs on these charts, including links to the original GN reviews where present. Be advised that CPUs often have several follow-up pieces of content in rapid succession as the landscape changes. To keep things simple, we’ll just link the original reviews. You can still find the follow-ups on the channel.

CPUArchitectureRelease DateGN Original Review*
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3DZen 42023AMD R7 7800X3D CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 9 9950XZen 52024AMD R9 9950X CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 9 9900XZen 52024AMD R9 9900X CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 7 9700XZen 52024AMD R7 9700X CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 5 9600XZen 52024N/A
Intel i9-14900KRaptor Lake Refresh2023Intel i9-14900K CPU Review
Intel i7-14700KRaptor Lake Refresh2023Intel i7-14700K CPU Review
Intel i5-14600KRaptor Lake Refresh2023Intel i5-14600K CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 9 7900Zen 42023AMD R9 7900 CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 5 7600Zen 42023AMD R5 7600 CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 7 7700Zen 42023AMD R7 7700 CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 5 7600XZen 42022AMD R5 7600X CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 7 7700XZen 42022AMD R7 7700X CPU Review & Benchmarks
AMD Ryzen 9 7900XZen 42022AMD R9 7900X CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 9 7950XZen 42022AMD R9 7950X CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3DZen 42023R9 7950X3D CPU Review
Intel i5-13600KRaptor Lake2022Intel i5-13600K CPU Review
Intel i7-13700KRaptor Lake2022Intel i7-13700K CPU Review
Intel i9-13900KRaptor Lake2022Intel i9-13900K CPU Benchmarks
Intel Pentium G7400Alder Lake2022Intel Pentium G7400 Review
AMD Ryzen 5 5600Zen 3 Vermeer2022AMD R5 5600 Review
AMD Ryzen 5 5600XZen 3 Vermeer2020AMD R5 5600X Review
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3DZen 3 Vermeer2023AMD R5 5600X3D CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 9 5950XZen 3 Vermeer2020AMD R9 5950X Review
AMD Ryzen 9 5900XZen 3 Vermeer2020AMD R9 5900X Review
AMD Ryzen 7 5700XZen 3 Vermeer2022AMD R7 5700X CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3DZen 3 Vermeer2024AMD R7 5700X3D CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 7 5800XZen 3 Vermeer2020AMD R7 5800X CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3DZen 3 Vermeer2022AMD R7 5800X3D CPU Benchmarks
Intel i3-12100FAlder Lake2022Intel i3-12100F CPU Benchmarks
Intel i5-12400Alder Lake2022Intel i5-12400 CPU Benchmarks
Intel i5-12600KAlder Lake2021Intel i5-12600K CPU Benchmark
Intel i9-12900KAlder Lake2021Intel i9-12900K Review
AMD Ryzen 5 3600Zen 2 Matisse2019AMD R5 3600 CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 7 3700XZen 2 Matisse2019AMD R7 3700X CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 9 3900XZen 2 Matisse2019AMD R9 3900X Review
AMD Ryzen 9 3950XZen 2 Matisse2019AMD R9 3950X Review
Intel i3-9100FCoffee Lake Refresh2019Intel i3-9100F CPU Benchmarks
Intel i5-9600KCoffee Lake Refresh2018Intel i5-9600K CPU Tests
Intel i7-8086KCoffee Lake2018Intel i7-8086K Binning Test
Intel i7-8700KCoffee Lake2017Intel i7-8700K CPU Review
Intel i5-8600KCoffee Lake2017Intel i5-8600K Review
Intel i7-9700KCoffee Lake Refresh2018Intel i7-9700K CPU Review
Intel i9-9900KCoffee Lake Refresh2018Intel i9-9900K CPU Review
AMD Ryzen 7 2700Zen+ Pinnacle Ridge2018AMD R7 2700 Review
AMD Ryzen 5 2600Zen+ Pinnacle Ridge2018AMD R5 2600 Review
AMD Ryzen 5 1600Zen2017AMD R5 1600 Review
AMD Ryzen 7 1700Zen2017AMD R7 1700 Benchmarks
AMD Ryzen 7 1700XZen2017AMD R7 1700X Review
AMD Ryzen 3 1300XZen2017AMD R3 1300X Review

Update Log

The below is an update log of changes to this page. The format is MM/DD/YYYY:

  • 10/13/2024: Created page with initial dataset following Zen 5 reviews and preceding Arrow Lake reviews

Update process / house cleaning (externally visible, but used internally):

  • Apply changes
  • Append to update log
  • Modify "Data Set" for both LTS and Active charts to identify the replacement dataset
  • Modify current recommendations at the top of the page
  • Append table of tested CPUs
  • Update to link the latest Best CPUs article

Grab a GN Soldering & Project Mat for a high-quality work surface with extreme heat resistance. These purchases directly fund our operation, including our build-out of the hemi-anechoic chamber for our acoustic testing! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

$68 Case with 4 Fans: SilverStone 515XR & $100 514X Case Reviews

10 octobre 2024 à 18:40
$68 Case with 4 Fans: SilverStone 515XR & $100 514X Case Reviewsjimmy_thang October 10, 2024

We review SilverStone’s more budget-oriented 514X and 515XR cases and analyze their build quality and thermal performance

The Highlights

  • The FARA 515XR is a $68 case that includes 4 rainbow fans and the 514X is a $100 mesh-fronted case
  • The 515XR’s front panel hurt its thermal performance
  • The 515XR has a shorter depth than most modern cases and the 514X isn’t bad but isn’t exciting
  • Original MSRP: $68 (515XR), $100 (514X)

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

Today we’re reviewing the $68 SilverStone FARA 515XR with 4 included rainbow fans, not traditional cycling RGB. It was intended as an Asia-exclusive case, but SilverStone is experimenting with bringing it to the US as a budget option. We’re also reviewing the SilverStone 514X, this one has 4x traditional ARGB fans and is priced at $100 to $110.

There was a period of time where Silverstone made our #1 recommended sub-$100 case with the RL06 (watch our review). It’s been a few years, but we’re back to see if they can repeat.

Editor's note: This was originally published on October 3, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing, Writing

Patrick Lathan

Testing

Mike Gaglione

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Camera

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


The 514X is a conventional mesh-fronted budget case, the kind SilverStone has been selling for years

As for the 515XR, SilverStone has been reluctant to bring it over to the US because the company feels this market has different expectations -- primarily for size, as this isn’t as deep as typical towers. This is a unique opportunity for us to compare a normal budget case versus the absolute minimum viable version and see what it takes to shave off that final $30.

Specs

514X515XR
Model No.SST-FA514X-BG (Black)SST-FA514X-WG (White)SST-FA515XR-BG (Black)SST-FA515XR-WG (White)
MaterialSteel, plastic, tempered glassSteel, plastic, tempered glass
MotherboardATX (12" x 11"), Micro-ATX (9.6" x 9.6"), Mini-ITX (6.7" x 6.7")ATX (12" x 11"), Micro-ATX (9.6" x 9.6"), Mini-ITX (6.7" x 6.7")
Drive bay
Internal: 3.5" x 2, 2.5" x 2
3.5"/2.5" x 2, 2.5" x 2
Cooling systemFront: 120mm x 3 (120mm x 3 ARGB fans included)Rear: 120mm x 1 (120mm x 1 ARGB fan included)Top: 120mm x 3 / 140mm x 2Front: 120mm x 3 / 140mm x 2 (120mm x 3 rainbow fans included)Rear: 120mm x 1 (120mm x 1 rainbow fan included)Top: 120mm x 3 / 140mm x 2Internal: 120mm x 2
Radiator supportFront: 120mm / 240mm / 360mmRear: 120mmTop: 120mm / 140mm / 240mm / 280mm / 360mmFront: 120mm / 140mm / 240mm / 280mm / 360mmRear: 120mmTop: 120mm / 140mm / 240mm / 280mm
Limitation of CPU cooler168mm159mm
Expansion slot77
Limitation of expansion cardLength : 378mm (Front mounted fans installed inside the front chassis)394mm (Front mounted fans installed outside the front chassis)Width : 174mmLength : 350mm
Power supplyStandard PS2 (ATX)Standard PS2 (ATX)
Limitation of PSU217mm (Drive cage installed at the front position)185mm (Drive cage installed at the rear position)160mm
Front I/O portUSB Type-C x 1USB 3.0 x 2Audio x 1Mic x 1USB 3.0 x 2Audio x 1Mic x 1[Ed. Note: There's only one audio jack]
Dimension220mm (W), x 492.7mm (H), x 458.6mm (D), 49.7 liters8.66" (W), x 19.4" (H), x 18.06" (D), 49.7 liters204.8mm (W), x 484.5mm (H), x 402.5mm (D), 39.94 liters8.06" (W), x 19.07" (H), x 15.85" (D), 39.94 liters
Net weight8.6 kgSST-FA515XR-BG: 6.18 kgSST-FA515XR-WG: 6.2 kg
MSRPSST-FA514X-BG: $99.99SST-FA514X-WG: $109.99SST-FA515XR-BG: $67.99SST-FA515XR-WG: $73.99

Specs copied from manufacturer materials, please read review for our own measurements and opinions

The Build (514X)

We’ll start with the 514X and move to the 515XR to look at what cost-saving they did.

The 514X is doing what the majority of competitive cases were back in 2019, which is shoving four fans into a $100 ventilated box. This is done with careful cost saving and has become more difficult in recent years, though there are still good options: We’ll soon be reviewing the Lancool 207 as a budget high airflow case, as another new example.

In the 514X, there are several areas of obvious cost-saving, and SilverStone directly acknowledged some of them to us: the expansion slots have punch-out disposable covers and there are no rubber grommets on cable cutouts. SilverStone pointed out that it still made an effort to ventilate the slot covers, even though they're disposable, but disposable slot covers on a $100 case does seem a little bit too cheap even for this configuration.

As for the lack of grommets, SilverStone advertises that a steel cover plate hides the cutouts and the cables routed through them. That's the theory, at least; we couldn't get the cover installed in its stock position. Fortunately there are two options for placing the cover (or it can be removed entirely, although the built-in GPU support relies on it. It's our policy to leave everything in place as much as possible for stock testing, but we were forced to shift the cover forward to get the 24-pin power cable connected. Moving the cover only requires removing one screw.

The HDD cage itself is only compatible with 3.5" drives: 2.5" drives must be mounted behind the motherboard tray.

The fan ARGB hub uses a SATA power connector and takes input from a button on the front panel (for built-in patterns) and an ARGB header (for external control). 

The hub doesn't have PWM speed control (though there are unpopulated pads for it), and even if it did, all four case fans are 3-pin. That’s not something we see very often these days. We always connect case fans to motherboard headers for thermal testing, which always allows speed control via voltage. The only advantage of the hub is that SilverStone uses it to pre-manage the rats' nest of cables.

Each of the fans has a daisy-chained ARGB connector, so if you have one free ARGB header and four free fan headers, you can get rid of the hub and connect everything to the motherboard. 

The front fan mounts are limited to 120mm exclusively. We’d recommend planning to use the stock fans with the 514X. On the plus side, there's space to move the front fans back into the interior of the chassis, which would give additional intake surface area at the cost of GPU clearance.

There's support for radiators up to 360mm on both the front and top mounts, but the front mount is easier to work with due to the case dimensions. We had to angle the top in. 

There are a couple of other minor budget-related points: no thumbscrews for the expansion slots, a loose square of mesh for a PSU filter, and a chassis that was originally built for a different case, evidenced by the unused side panel snaps and slot for a PSU shroud extension that doesn't exist. 

On the other hand, the 514X's front panel is almost entirely metal, including the snaps, and a GPU support is included with the case. The snaps are good, and although a GPU support in that location isn’t the most helpful, it doesn't hurt. 

In spite of the low price, the front I/O includes a USB Type-C port. The Type-C port in particular is still one of the more expensive case features, so we're happy to see one here.

We've spoken to manufacturers before about colors and pricing. Black has been the most broadly popular color for years, so it's the most common and the cheapest. Low-margin budget cases are the most likely to reflect paint price differences in retail prices, like the King 95 PRO, where it’s a little costlier for white version. The white version of the 514X also costs $110 whereas the black version costs $100. 

The Build (515XR)

Let’s move on to the 515XR, which is the cheaper of the two.

The 515XR is much cheaper than the 514X, about a 33% price reduction when comparing the like-for-like color SKUs. It's not necessarily worse than the 514X, but there are a few reasons that SilverStone has been reluctant to bring the 515XR to the US market, like the case’s shorter depth, which won’t fit longer GPUs. The company has been very open with us about this release being a trial run.

SilverStone is also concerned that the rainbow fans are going to lead to confusion and returns in the US market. In Asia, we’re told that rainbow fans are common and are understood. 

The fans in the 515XR aren't ARGB, which is fine, but since most cases are photographed with a rainbow pattern for RGB now, this will lead to confusion. The term "rainbow fans" combined with marketing images of multicolored fans implies baked-in RGB lighting patterns. 

Instead, each of the fans has a set of static non-animated multicolored LEDs that can't be turned off since they're powered by the fan connectors. This is an older school approach for price. We wouldn't mind some old-school solid-color LEDs with that, or no LEDs at all, but we’re not sure about the rainbow choice. According to SilverStone, rainbow fans are more common in the Asian market from which the 515XR originates.

Out of the box, the fans are all connected to a single 4-pin Molex adapter. We recommend leaving this alone: the fan cables are too short to reach anything on their own, and if you drop fan speeds, the LEDs dim (they run on the same circuit). Those of you who built computers in the early 2000s will remember this behavior from the older LED fans.

The 515XR is nearly identical to the sawed-off form factor of the old Fractal Meshify C. The Meshify C was a case that came out back in 2017 (watch our review), in the brief span after optical drive bays and before really massive GPUs. This is 2024, though, and 4090s exist, so SilverStone is worried that the 515XR is "only" compatible with GPUs up to 350mm long. 

We don't see this as an issue. Most people buying a $68 case are probably not buying super long video cards. We recommend limiting GPUs to ~300mm to give the case fans some space: if your GPU is bigger than that, there are better case options.

Like the 514X, it doesn't make sense to replace the 515XR's stock fans; however, unlike the 514X, the 515XR has 140mm front mounts. 

The 515XR's drive support is also more flexible, since the drive cage can mount either 2.5" or 3.5" drives. The cage has a removable sled with vibration damping, and the dedicated 2.5" mounts are separate and held in with thumbscrews, all of which are improvements over the 514X. The PSU mount in the 515XR also has foam supports that the 514X lacks, and there's a single reusable expansion slot cover.

The 515XR has two internal 120mm fan mounts on top of the PSU shroud. We generally don't see much thermal improvement from shroud-top fans without careful planning, like in the Antec Flux Pro. The 515XR's shroud is mostly sealed. Still, it's an option that the 514X lacks.

We do not recommend putting a 360mm radiator into the 515XR. There's only a 32mm gap left in the shroud for a radiator (with the stock fans installed), and the drive cage may also interfere with the available space depending on which drives are installed. The top slot technically fits radiators up to 280mm, but this would make it difficult to use any of the cutouts at the top edge of the motherboard.

There are some cheap quality of life improvements we'd like to see. First, the cutout nearest the 24-pin power header is almost too small, and the cutouts along the bottom edge of the motherboard are partially blocked by the PSU. Second, the reset and power buttons aren't marked. Finally, the rear fan is positioned so that it needs to be fully removed before installing motherboards with built-in rear I/O covers.

As a final note, we asked SilverStone why the black version of the 515XR is 20 grams lighter than the white one, assuming it could be a typo. Its product manager says that white paint requires a thicker coat, and that the white fans also weigh slightly more than the black ones, so the 20 gram difference is real.

Buy a GN 4-Pack of PC-themed 3D Coasters! These high-quality, durable, flexible coasters ship in a pack of 4, each with a fully custom design made by GN's team. You'll get a motherboard-themed coaster with debug display & reset buttons, a SATA SSD with to-scale connectors, RAM sticks, and a GN logo. These fund our web work! Buy here.

Thermals

We're covering two different cases in one review, so most of our comparisons here will be between the 514X and the 515XR. We don't have many sub-$100 budget cases on the charts yet, so these will serve as a starting point as we add more, like the upcoming Lian Li Lancool 207. Of the cases that have been tested with our current methodology, the aging Fractal Pop Air RGB is the closest match to the SilverStone cases, so we'll be using that as a representative example of existing budget mesh-fronted enclosures. We've seen the Pop Air drop as low as $50 for the non-RGB variant. Montech's Sky and Air cases are usually strong competitors in this space, and we'll add those to our charts as we test them.

CPU Full Load Thermals - Noise-Normalized

Our first test is for noise-normalized thermals, where we set all cases to the same noise level in our hemi-anechoic chamber. Neither the 514X nor the 515XR offer fan control out of the box, but we were able to perform noise-normalized tests by connecting the fans to motherboard headers as usual.

The 514X averaged 48 degrees Celsius above ambient all-core and 52 degrees for the P-cores, while the 515XR was significantly worse at 53 all-core and 57 P-core. The 515XR's dual-layer front panel is more restrictive, while the 514X's front panel is a single layer of steel mesh. 

The 514X isn't especially impressive outside of its price when compared to the rest of the cases on this CPU thermal chart, but it's tied with the Pop Air RGB (watch our review) -- which has been on heavy sales lately. The 515XR has some of the worst results on the chart, tied with the stock HYTE Y60. This is a letdown, and it's not at all what we expected: we've seen plenty of cheap mesh-fronted cases punch above their weight, like the Lian Li Lancool 215, Montech X3 and Air 1000, and several Phanteks cases like the P400A (read our review) with the mesh front. We’re adding the 216 back to the charts later this week along with the 207, so that’ll help give some perspective as well.

The industry has moved away from using multiple layers of material in mesh front panels, which has led to better performance in many cases. The 515XR could be something special if it had not made this design decision.

GPU Full Load Thermals - Standardized Fans

Our standardized fan test replaces all stock fans in each case with the same set of three Noctua fans: two 140mm intake, one 120mm exhaust. We have explained why there are limitations to this testing, such as worsening performance of cases which include more or larger fans. However, we run this test due to popular demand from the audience. You can find our methodology and limitations of this testing linked here.

This is the perfect chance to see how the stock fans affect the performance of the SilverStone cases, versus the designs of the chassis themselves.

GPU temperature in the 514X averaged 43 degrees Celsius above ambient, 49 on the memory, and 56 hotspot. That puts it in the middle of the chart, tied with several other similar mesh-fronted front intake configurations like the Flux Pro, Torrent, and Pop Air RGB. That's confirmation that the 514X's front panel and general layout are at least as good as other cases in the same category. The 515XR averaged 49 degrees, 57 on the memory, and 64 hotspot, which puts it among the worst results on the chart for the second time in a row. Again, all of these results were recorded using the same set of fans, so the difference comes down to the 515XR's front panel. The 514X seems fine. The 515XR is a let-down.

CPU Full Load Thermals - Standardized Fans

In the same test, the 514X's CPU temperature average of 40 degrees above ambient still came close to the other mesh-fronted cases, but the Flux Pro (read our review), Torrent, and Pop Air all averaged 38 degrees with the standardized fans. The 515XR was again worse at 44 degrees, but the bottom of the chart is stacked with bottom-intake configurations, so it's not among the worst results. Front or side intake is significantly better for CPU thermals with our test bench.

GPU Full Load Thermals - Noise-Normalized

Back to the noise normalized results, neither of the SilverStone cases did well for GPU thermals. The 514X averaged 50 degrees above ambient, 58 memory, and 65 hotspot, with only two previously-tested cases doing worse, one of them being the Pop Air RGB. 

The 515XR is the new hottest result on the chart. We express all temperatures as degrees above ambient to account for fluctuations, so the average GPU temperature of 54 degrees above ambient translates to a logged steady state temperature of 75 degrees. That wasn't enough to cause any throttling, but in a warmer room, the GPU might lose some boost headroom.

CPU Full Load Thermals - Full Speed

This is the full speed chart with the stock fans.

The 514X's stock fans topped out at 1300-1400RPM, while the 515XR's were 1100-1200RPM. Those limits are a little low for 120mm fans, which makes them relatively quiet, which is important given that both cases are set up to run all case fans at 100% speed out of the box. With all four fans maxed out, average all-core CPU temperature in the 514X was 44 degrees above ambient while maintaining a noise level of 34.6dBA. It matched some louder cases, like the 36.8 dBA King 95 Pro, but only slightly outperformed the quieter 31.3 dBA Pop Air RGB. 

The 515XR tied the Pop Air for noise but had worse thermals, as usual. The front panel design really prevents it from doing as well as it could.

VRM & RAM Full Load Thermals - Noise-Normalized

In noise normalized testing, VRM and RAM thermals aligned with the CPU thermal results. The 514X averaged 34 degrees above ambient for the VRM and 28 degrees for memory, putting it in the middle of the chart, while the 515XR averaged 39 for the VRM and 32 for the memory, the hottest results on the chart in both categories.

Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

The 514X is an extremely normal case: it costs about $100, it has the basic features you'd expect from a budget case, but it also has a full set of four ARGB fans. Thermal performance doesn't look amazing compared to the rest of our chart, but we haven't yet fully populated our chart with comparable $100 cases. Performance is similar to the Fractal Pop Air RGB, so you can look back at that review for a rough comparison versus a wider selection of older cases. The 514X isn't bad, but we aren't excited about it, and we've seen the Fractal North on sale recently for as low as $110. Anyways, the 514X is okay.


We were excited about the $68 515XR mostly for the price, especially after seeing that it has almost every feature we care about from the 514X (except the Type-C header). Sub-$68 is the domain of DIYPC and SAMA, and there are few name-brand options with reasonable ventilation at that price. Unfortunately, it reminds us strongly of the Thermaltake Versa J24 (watch our review). The J24 was extremely similar to the 515XR in several ways, but most importantly it had a layered front panel that hurt its performance. For that review, we were able to remove a filter and improve the J24's performance without changing its appearance, but that's not an option with the 515XR. The 515XR is almost a really competitive case at its price. We’re just a little hung up on its front panel. We have to admit that there aren't easy alternatives to recommend at this price (other than cases on sale, like the Pop Air), but the 515XR could have had a wholehearted recommendation with some alterations to the front panel.


Fractal's Excellent Era 2 Case: Review, Thermal Benchmarks, Cable Management, & Quality

7 octobre 2024 à 22:46
Fractal's Excellent Era 2 Case: Review, Thermal Benchmarks, Cable Management, & Qualityjimmy_thang October 7, 2024

We review the Fractal Era 2’s design, thermals, airflow, and more

The Highlights

  • Fractal’s Era 2 is an ITX case that features an aluminum exterior
  • The walnut wood panel on our Era 2 came cracked
  • Fractal’s Era 2 is a well-executed case that’s heavy on mechanical features
  • Original MSRP: $200
  • Release Date: September 18, 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

The brand new Fractal Design Era 2 ITX case is heavy on the mechanical features.

The entire case disassembles without screws or traditional snaps: Its walnut panel pops up on press, its dust filter acts as a locking mechanism for its shell, and then its shell removes in a single piece on slides. Its spring-loaded latches release the radiator mount to fully open up the case for building, and 4 screws can be loosened to move the central spine between 3 positions to trade-off between GPU and CPU cooler clearance. There’s also a single screw that controls a rail-mounted dual SSD cage.

But the case also does some weird things and has some problems: For one, our wood panel is cracked. This is primarily concerning because it’s a point that Fractal really pushed when it unveiled the case, stating that it had a reinforcement that specifically prevented cracking. Second, the PSU exhaust and bottom intake are in conflict with each other.

Editor's note: This was originally published on September 18, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing, Writing

Jeremy Clayton

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Camera

Tim Phetdara

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


We made another 3D airflow animation to help explain the configuration that Fractal created where the power supply fan is fighting the intake fans. We’ll talk about this down below.

So, it’s mechanically complex and costs $200. We’ll go over build quality and thermal performance in this review.

Fractal Era 2 Overview and Competition

Let’s go over the basics and competition first.

The Era 2 comes in blue, black, or silver and is a sandwich-style ITX case. The case has two pre-installed fans in the bottom for intake, room for a 240mm or 280mm liquid cooler in the top, and a continuing trend of higher cost ITX cases. A good portion of that cost is probably tied-up in the stylized aluminum shell and slotted walnut wood top panel. 

The side panels have ventilation via a hole pattern that ranges from sparse to useless, mixing an artsy approach with at least trying to hit the basics of cooling. These holes are a good indicator that Fractal is looks-first on this case. We’ll talk about thermals later in the review.

The original Era Il ITX predecessor is a smaller case with a similar look, but also one which Fractal has openly told reviewers it felt it had underperformed on. The company is trying to fix its shortcomings with the Era 2. 

Internally, the Era 2 has a lot in common with the $180 Fractal Terra. The motherboard, GPU, and PSU are in the same basic layout on a moveable spine, but the power supply is rotated 180 degrees in the Era 2. This results in the cables facing up – nice for ease of access – and the PSU exhaust facing down, which is awkward from an airflow standpoint. 

Other than its own Terra, competition to Fractal’s Era 2 would include these cases:

The $150 Lian Li DAN A4-H2O, which is smaller, more rectangular, has no extra fans, and still supports a 240mm liquid cooler. A much larger and cheaper comparison would be the A3-mATX we recently reviewed, but they exist in totally different market segments. We did like that case, though. We also recently reviewed Fractal’s Mood, but would not recommend the case; its thermal performance was overall poor and some of its compatibility choices were odd. The M1EVO (watch our review) is another relatively expensive, specialized ITX case you could look at. 

Fractal Era 2 Dimensions and Fitment

Getting into the dimensions and compatibility: The Era 2 is 365mm long, 165mm wide, and 315mm tall, which calculates to a 19L volume and is nearly spot-on with Fractal’s own measurements. 

If you’re keeping track of our ITX reviews at home, add one more to the tally for “not lying on the spec sheet.” That’s not as common a tally as it should be.

The movable spine has a major impact on internal fitment and can be set to three predetermined, stepped positions. This is a big difference from the stepless nature of the Terra’s spine adjustment. 

Position 1 gives the most CPU-side clearance and fits up to 70mm tall coolers while reducing GPU-side clearance to 48mm (or just 2.4 slots) of available thickness. Position 3 changes those values to 55mm for the CPU side and 63mm (3.1 slots) for the GPU.

Maximum GPU height is 137mm regardless of spine position, but you’ll want to be aware of the cable bend also. Fractal recommends a max GPU backplate thickness of 4mm. Bear in mind that larger GPUs will restrict air movement within that side of the case and power cable management can become problematic with larger cards. As always, just because it fits doesn’t mean it is a good fit.

As another point of reference, the RTX 4080 FE fits, but will have its flow-through cooler heavily limited due to having only 11mm of clearance behind the card in spine position 3. So we’re back to “it sort of fits” but isn’t necessarily a good choice.

For cooling: The top bracket can hold 280mm radiator and fan combos up to 52mm thick. 240mm liquid coolers can be slightly thicker depending on exact placement, but will quickly encroach on power cables and their own tubes.

Both SFX and SFX-L PSUs are supported. Space for cables is greatly hampered by SFX-L, so we’d favor standard SFX.

Internal drive support is pretty good for the size. There are 4x 2.5” mounts in total – two in the rail-mount drive cage (blocking off a large portion of the intake fan below it) and two on the spine behind the PSU, though are only usable with the spine in positions 1 and 2, and would be detrimental to flow-through GPUs. 3.5” drives are not natively supported in the case.

The Build - Positives

Time to run through positives and negatives. We’ll start with positives.

There are a lot of things the Era 2 does right, and the build process was relatively straightforward for ITX standards. The top radiator mount was a major help, as was the PSU orientation with the internal terminals facing up. Accessibility overall is excellent, which is a major factor in ITX cases.

The GPU side of the case is essentially wide open, and a cutout at the front helps with installation of the longest supported GPUs. You’re able to angle the far end of the card into the hole first, then move the PCIe slot side into position.

Cable management is also excellent overall and is one of the most difficult things for an ITX case to accommodate successfully. There are tie-down points and small channels for cables everywhere – like around and in between the bottom fans. Even in the most GPU-biased spine position (3), you end up with just enough space around the edge of the motherboard to get the job done tidily for cable management. The manual is also well-made and offers actually helpful cable management tips.

Fractal’s attention to detail in the design of the Era 2 is overall great, as it was able to make an objectively complex case remain easy to use through thoughtful engineering.

There’s a number of other small features that we thought were well done. To quickly go through them:

  • Tapered plastic rails at the front and rear ensure that sliding the shell on/off is smooth
  • A slight inward angle along the bottom interior edges to help keep cables tucked in
  • Flared leading edges on the rail interface for the drive cage and PSU bracket are well done
  • The opening at the front of the internal chassis to assist with long GPU installation is rounded over to be completely smooth
  • A small strip of fabric glued to the top edge of the front I/O to keep the aluminum from rubbing
  • The dust filter doubles as the lock mechanism, causing two spring-loaded plastic lugs at the front to pivot into place
  • A bowed-down filter at the bottom to match the bowing of the underside of the case, which Fractal claims gives better access to air

The Build - Negatives

Moving on to the negatives, one of the only difficult aspects about the build was access to the motherboard’s top edge. Since it’s inverted in the Era 2, it ends up down at the bottom. You may want to pre-connect cables there before installation or get comfortable with using a plastic spudger to poke them on after the fact.

The wood top panel on our sample is cracked in one place between the edge and the interior slats. We don’t know at what stage the wood cracked -- possibly at the factory or maybe in storage and shipping as it crossed climates, humidity, and temperature gradients. Either way, wood is a relatively sensitive material, and this makes us concerned about the durability of the part, despite the steps Fractal took to reinforce it. Fractal emphasized in its early meetings that it was reinforcing this panel with metal to prevent cracking in a way that seemed like shots taken at competition, but now we wonder if it was actually because of their own experiences. Using two separate pieces of wood might have avoided this, despite creating a seam. This isn’t extremely noticeable, but it is disappointing. 

By pressing the sides together, we see the crack fit perfectly back into place. This makes us think that Fractal may be better off with 2 crossbars rather than one, as it seems like the wood curing and aging may have pulled apart horizontally. Another crossbar to hold the sides uniform to each other might help.

Also in the realm of build quality, one of the side panels on our sample is Tesla-like, in that it doesn’t line up perfectly with the panels around it, resulting in a visible jump from one to the other. These are both QC issues at the core, and are things Fractal should definitely look out for on a $200 case.

A final minor annoyance is the fact that the shell has a crossbar at the bottom of the rear I/O area, meaning that you have to remove all of the cables before you can slide the shell on or off. Fractal could have built this in a way where it’d be easier to get into the case for maintenance without that bar, though this may be a sacrifice for rigidity.

Fractal Era 2 Airflow

For the potential airflow downside, we turn to our animation.

As we mentioned before, the PSU’s exhaust side faces the intake fan. The case orients the power supply for the easiest cable management at the cost of potential airflow conflict between the PSU’s exhaust and the bottom intake. Most modern power supplies stop spinning the fans when load isn’t sufficient, so at idle, this should actually work pretty well. It’ll force air “backwards” into the power supply, allowing it to flow past the PSU’s passive fan and out the traditional “bottom” of the power supply. That air will then exit through the perforations in the side of the chassis. That much is good. When the power supply fan becomes active, it’ll suddenly directly fight the force-fed air from bottom intake, and it’s likely that bottom intake will overpower the power supply fan. There’s enough of a gap where it won’t cause major problems, as opposed to a directly attached opposing fan, but this could still be sub-optimal for some power supplies. It’s going to be highly PSU-dependent. It’s not something we think is a critical issue, but it is one that was a little odd.

Fractal Era 2 Thermals

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Now we’ll take a look at the thermal performance of the Era 2. As a reminder for anyone new to our ITX reviews, our current ITX testing methodology prohibits competitive comparisons between cases, but allows us to be much more flexible when it comes to testing a single case against itself in multiple configurations.

For the Era 2, all testing was performed with locked frequency and power on the 13600K, locked fan speed on the 4070 FE, and 100% fan and pump speeds on the 240mm CLC and case fans. We treated spine position 1 as the default, since it’s the intended setup for this size GPU.

CPU Thermals

Starting with CPU thermals, all of the tested configurations resulted in a narrow band of only 2.1C. The stock result has a slight lead with the P-cores at steady state average at roughly 45C over ambient.

Removing the top panel didn’t result in any meaningful thermal change, showing us that despite appearances, it isn’t actually restrictive to flow, at least not in this configuration.

Setting the spine to position 3 hurts CPU thermals slightly, but not significantly. We were curious if the holes on the side panels actually did anything, so we covered them with tape. The answer for CPU thermals is “no,” since it’s tied with the position 3 result.

The biggest impact was from populating and installing the lower drive cage, resulting in 46.8 degrees over ambient on the P-cores. If you have just a single SATA SSD, we recommend mounting it to the forward-most spine mount behind the PSU to avoid this blockage.

Generally speaking, the two sets of fans at full speed are somewhat brute-forcing the situation, but the noise levels aren’t actually that high or unpleasant due to the fans’ middling 2000RPM maximum. 

GPU Thermals

GPU thermals are next and post a wider range. Results are also consistent here and well within normal operating ranges. The stock results have the GPU die at 50C over ambient at steady state, with roughly 68C hotspot and 43C on the VRAM. Removing the top again has no appreciable effect.

The spine position 3 result isn’t meaningfully outside of variance, but suggests that keeping the GPU’s intake fans closer to the side panel is helpful.

Installing the drive cage raises core temperature of the core by about 2C, but could be further exaggerated by larger GPUs that need all the airflow help they can get.

Blocking the side ventilation and moving the spine to position 3 to allow the GPU best access to internal air shows us that the holes do actually help, as the temperature did climb.

VRM + RAM Thermals

For VRM and RAM temperatures, we see actual scaling between configurations. Everything is kept in check by the fan blasting air directly at the top edge of the motherboard.

The stock position 1 result is the best at just 20C over ambient, and moving the spine to position 3 gives the worst result. This makes sense considering the proportion of intake air is reduced on the CPU side of the case when moving from 1 to 3. Interestingly, blocking the side panel actually lowered VRM temperature by a couple of degrees. We suspect this is because taking away those exit routes forces the intake air in that region to flow only over the motherboard.

Fractal Era 2 Conclusion

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

The Fractal Era 2 has a great combination of features, ease of use, and performance. The single largest downside is the price. $200+ isn’t uncommon for high-end, boutique ITX, but it’s pretty steep for the mass market. A lot of that money is probably in the material choices of walnut and moderately thick aluminum, but it’s also just the ITX world.

ATX cases at this price can be really impressive too, inherently have more flexibility, and they cost more to ship. As always, ITX is all about wanting the form factor.

In terms of construction, we think the Era 2 displays a mastery of stamped steel as a medium. There are numerous features and fine detail touches all over the stamped parts that indicate use of complex, multi-step tooling, and nothing is left sharp. Fractal is reaching an impressive level of tooling engineering maturity.

The exterior aluminum shell and walnut top panel come off as the weakest parts in this regard, with our sample having both a crack in the wood and a misaligned side panel. This shows possible execution issues despite strong fundamentals.

Speaking of the shell, Fractal could use this as an opportunity to make visually and functionally distinct versions of the case by just making new exteriors. That opens up the avenue to do more colorways or seasonal colors going forward.

We were most impressed by the mechanical features and smart implementation of them:

  • The top radiator mount is executed well
  • The locking action on the dust filter is clever
  • The rail system with a single screw for PSU and SSD brackets also worked well
  • And the movable spine to fine-tune part fitment is improving with iterations

Thermals are good all around, despite strange PSU orientation.

The Era 2 sits at the opposite end of the spectrum from how tedious and clunky the NCASE M1EVO is. The only thing going for the M1EVO in this comparison is its extreme versatility and ability to fit even the largest of GPUs, making it still a more versatile and customizable solution, but one which we think is less refined. The versatility has benefits, but they’re for a different kind of build.

For the money, we think the Era 2 makes the $180 Terra (read our review) look less appealing on paper, since the $20 gets you two fans and much expanded capability in cooling and drive mounts. That said, the Terra is smaller and has a unique look and its own mechanical complexities that might just be more to some people’s liking. They are different enough, especially in size, that anyone who wants a Terra specifically may find the Era 2 non-viable. But if you think either could work and you’re on the fence, we’d favor the Era 2, at this point.

Those who want similar capability for less money should look at the A4-H2O, but should be aware that it’s more difficult to build in due to its reduced size.

The A3-mATX is also an excellent case (read our review) for relatively cheap (by modern standards). It’s a totally different style and not directly comparable, but you should be aware of it if you’re OK with a larger size and simpler case.

Overall, we think the Era 2 is well-executed.


Get It Together, Corsair | $4,700 Pre-Built Gaming PC Review (Corsair ONE i500)

4 octobre 2024 à 19:50
Get It Together, Corsair | $4,700 Pre-Built Gaming PC Review (Corsair ONE i500)jimmy_thang October 4, 2024

From thermals to design, we explain how terrible Corsair’s ONE i500 pre-built PC is

The Highlights

  • Corsair’s ONE i500 is a pre-built PC equipped with a custom case and a 14900K
  • The PC has major thermal issues in regards to both CPU and video card performance
  • Despite advertising “uncompromised” performance, the Corsair ONE i500 is full of compromises
  • Original MSRP: $4,200 - $4,700
  • Release Date: May 6, 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Buy a GN 4-Pack of PC-themed 3D Coasters! These high-quality, durable, flexible coasters ship in a pack of 4, each with a fully custom design made by GN's team. You'll get a motherboard-themed coaster with debug display & reset buttons, a SATA SSD with to-scale connectors, RAM sticks, and a GN logo. These fund our web work! Buy here.

Intro

The Corsair ONE i500 is terrible. 

Corsair’s product page calls the i500’s performance “uncompromised” no fewer than 6 times. Except we’d say that running 600MHz slower than stock on the CPU because it’s intentionally power limited is literally the definition of compromise.

In fact, there is no more literal definition of the word. In our view, Corsair is just straight-up lying by calling this uncompromised when referring to thermals and size, because it is actively compromising.

Editor's note: This was originally published on September 29, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing, Writing

Jeremy Clayton

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

3D Animation

Andrew Coleman

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


Also, in Corsair’s world, “advanced”, “top-tier” cooling means GPU VRAM at 94 degrees Celsius and a 120mm radiator desperately trying (but failing) to cool the 14900K from hitting 100 degrees Celsius.

We spent over $4,700 on the Corsair ONE i500 pre-built gaming PC because it’s spammed everywhere across the internet a few months ago. We’ve seen nonstop ads for it on social media, videos with influencers and showcases, and it’s... bad.

There are a few positives, like the OS setup. But that’s not really enough.

Corsair ONE i500 Overview

The i500 is available in just two configurations, both using the Intel i9-14900K with the same motherboard, cooling, PSU, and custom case. The ONE we have has an RTX 4090 and 64GB of DDR5-6000 for $4700 (or $4200 on sale at the time of writing).

Corsair ONE i500 Part and Price Breakdown

Part NameDIY Equivalent PartDIY Part Price
CPUIntel i9-14900KIdentical$530
CPU CoolerCorsair 120mm CLCCorsair iCUE H60x RGB ELITE$80
MotherboardMSI MAG B760M MORTAR WIFI CORSAIRMSI MAG B760M MORTAR WIFI II$200
MemoryCorsair Vengeance 64GB DDR5-6000 CL30Identical$215
StorageSamsung PM9A1 2TB SSDSamsung 980 Pro 2TB$150
GPUPalit NVIDIA RTX 4090ASUS TUF GAMING RTX 4090$1,600
CaseCorsair ONE i500 Custom CaseAny $100 case that fits$100
Power SupplyCorsair SF1000L 1000WIdentical$150
FansExtra 2x Corsair AF120 SlimIdentical$50
Pre-built Price: $4,700DIY Total: $3,075

We did some price analysis using identical DIY parts where possible or replacements where not. We’re not trying to outmatch Corsair -- we want a fair fight, so we stuck as close to the spec as we could.

The i500 ends up with a premium of $1,625 over DIY, or $1,225 if counting the current sale – which, in either of those two situations, is absolutely, completely insane. For reference, some of the Maingear and Starforge PCs we’ve looked at over the last two years have been on the “higher” side of “build fee” and markup, both at around $400-$550 on top of builds that cost around $1,500 to $2,000. 

At this price, we’re disappointed with several of the part choices, including the B760 chipset motherboard (more on that later), the inadequate 120mm CPU liquid cooler, and the capacity of the SSD. 4TB M.2 options start around $220, including Corsair’s own MP600 CORE XT 4TB for $260. Yet, our $4,700 build only provides us 2TB. 

It doesn’t come with any peripherals either, but Corsair’s happy to link its $280 K100 AIR wireless keyboard prominently on the product page.

The case itself is custom and exclusive to the i500. 

It has a solid front, which comes in the dark wood version we have, sourced from walnut, light wood sourced from maple, or black metal.

The top and bottom of the case have really bulky aluminum fins. The top gets warm during operation, but the metal isn’t leveraged for cooling in the way it should be. This was a missed opportunity in such a customized build as this is.

The bottom has holes to theoretically let the PSU get access to air, but it’s so blocked off that there’s only a few millimeters of space for it to breathe so the vents are functionally useless or very close to it. This is bad, and the case should absolutely not be placed on carpet.

All the fans in the i500 are Corsair AF120 SLIMs that top out at 2,000 RPM and are all stacked-up right against the side. It’s a unique ensemble. Slim fans typically struggle in high resistance applications, like on radiators. The left side fans are entirely intake, but the right side has none and has no real opportunity for airflow.

The i500’s main cooling is handled by two independent closed-loop liquid coolers: 120mm on the CPU as left side intake and a 240mm radiator on the GPU as top exhaust. 

The CPU cooler is laughable for the notoriously power hungry 14900K (read our review). 

As for the GPU cooler, it should be able to handle its job given no major screw ups. Unfortunately for Corsair, there are major screw ups. 

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Corsair ONE i500 Thermals

Corsair ONE i500 Thermals - GPU Comparison

Here’s the chart of GPU thermals for the Corsair ONE at steady state under various loads.

GPU thermals are abysmal. The water-cooled Corsair 4090 has GPU VRAM hitting 94 degrees Celsius in a 21C ambient, which is completely unacceptable even if it were air-cooled. TjMax for VRAM, depending on special exclusions and exceptions, is typically 95C or 105C. It depends on the specific memory. In either scenario, the 94C result is deeply concerning and embarrassing for Corsair to even ship out the door with water attached to the block that shares a cold plate with the memory.

We added the ASUS Strix 4090 here just for a high-end air cooler reference and used its stock fan curve. Testing is on an open bench -- it’s not a perfectly controlled comparison, and it’s not supposed to be. The point is a reference.

The i500’s 4090 is warmer across the board, even with liquid cooling. GPU core is also way higher on the i500’s 4090, at 70 versus 63.7 degrees Celsius. Back when we reviewed the Colorful Neptune 4090, its core temperature was about 52C in the same test – albeit with an entirely different liquid cooler. Corsair’s 4090 thermals are disastrous.

Thermal interface material, including pads, will age. Dust accumulates. Liquid permeates tubes. With time, this 94C will easily breach 100C with a little bit of time in the mix or a higher local ambient temperature. 

All Thermals

Liquid temperature inside the GPU loop hit 65C for the i500. For reference, some CLC manufacturers, including Asetek, cite 60-65C as being the maximum safe liquid temperature for the plastics internal to the pump before they start breaking down.

All Thermals - Equilibrium Chart

This chart shows all system thermals at steady state.

We already talked about GPU thermals being not only uncompetitive, but embarrassingly bad and potentially damaging to long-term survivability of some of its components.  

The CPU is next: During a Cinebench workload at steady-state, the P-cores averaged 89 degrees Celsius. The hottest single cores were hitting 100C, only stopping there because they were thermal throttling and hitting TjMax. This is literally compromise, again, despite what we believe is Corsair’s false advertising.

With Blender, which is a completely realistic all-core workload, we still monitored 81-degree results on P-cores and 92 for the hottest single core. VR VCC also measured hot, way up at 85C. The MOSFET measurement from the motherboard was 79 degrees, which is warm, but survivable depending on capacitor temperature (which we didn’t check, since our conclusion is already that you shouldn’t buy this). 

The PCH was fine, SPD Hub on RAM was fine, and the drive was also fine.

These issues point to something being fundamentally wrong with the i500’s GPU cooling setup. And its CPU cooling setup. And just the computer in general -- but we’ll focus on the GPU since the VRAM is so bad.

A large portion of the issue is that the rear fan on the GPU radiator, of which there are two, is actually controlled by the CPU cooler liquid temperature, and it barely sped up during the GPU-only load, like gaming at 4K. 

You also can’t change this fan behavior. If that sounds stupid, it’s because it is.

This alone doesn’t explain the 94C VRAM, so we’ll look for a root cause in the tear-down. Let’s jump over to that now.

Corsair ONE i500 Tear-Down & Disassembly

Starting the tear-down, we remove the case’s two floppy panels before unscrewing the 2 large metal side panels underneath.

Removing one of the panels unveils a swinging door, which, as a mechanism, is nice. It houses 2 fans and the CPU cooler’s 120mm radiator, which is too small to effectively cool the PC’s 14900K. We can also see that it has short cooling tubes connected to it in order to reduce clutter, but at the cost of reduced usefulness in future systems. 

Inside the case, we can see multiple clips that manage one of the fan cables. It’s a nice touch, but they are held down by adhesive, which come off easily as a result of the extreme heat build-up within the system. Corsair fully customized this case specifically for this purpose, so choosing not to build metal cable tie points into the case is not only bizarre, but a waste of an opportunity. The point of going fully custom is to not need to resort to glue. 

Next, we unscrewed the swinging door to get better access to the motherboard and to pull the cooler out.

Removing the water cooler, we noticed that there were some loose screws on the mounting bracket. The cooler ended up using a pre-applied thermal paste via silk screen application, which is fine and keeps things consistent.  

Examining the graphics card, we can see that the VRM is completely exposed, forcing it to rely exclusively on air cooling. This approach is a major shortcoming of the design and shows either a lack of care or a lack of understanding of how hot VRMs get.

The GPU uses a 3-slot bracket, which ends up being a wasted benefit since the card simply isn’t heavy enough to rely on it. For heavy air-cooled video cards, 3-slot brackets are a great way to help reduce GPU sag; here, however, the 3-slot bracket provides no value to the rigidity of basically just a blank PCB with a CLC strapped to the top.

Taking the card out of the case, we noticed that its PCB has 2x 8-pin blank spots, which suggests Corsair reused this PCB from another design. 

We looked at the space between the PCB and the copper cold plate to check for thermal pads and saw that a corner of the memory module had zero contact to a thermal pad. We also saw poor contact around the edges of other memory modules. This helps explain some of the poor performance we saw in our thermal results.

The card’s GPU and memory share the same copper cold plate. The downside to this approach is that the GPU appears to run a little bit warmer as a result. The upside is that the memory can access better cooling because of this design, but unfortunately with Corsair’s execution, it didn’t work based on our testing. We also noticed that the thermal pads are on the thicker side, which hurts performance. They also felt completely dry. We’re not convinced the thermal conductivity of these pads is any good.

The top of the case uses a 240mm radiator, which isn’t sufficient to deal with all of the heat the PC puts out. Going back to the GPU, its solution is very disappointing and we were baffled by how barebones and cheap it is.  

On the bright side, all of the computer’s cables were fully seated, though we did notice 4 pretty loose screws on the motherboard with one of them being completely loose. 

Removing the motherboard from the case exposes some built-in cable ties that help manage the cables on the back. This is a nice touch as they flatten the cables out, though they are inaccessible without removing the motherboard. 

Removing the PSU, we can see some odd, massive screwed-in steel plates that hold the cables in place. Corsair is investing effort into the wrong areas to manage its cables.

Finally, during the teardown, we noticed that the case had a strange metal box which clamped the front IO cables together. Corsair used glue and tape here to hold things down, which made it feel like a hack job. We also were uncertain of its purpose. It is neither a heatsink nor an EMI shield.

Overall, the case was frustrating to work in. We understand it’s not meant to be taken apart but some level of serviceability is nice and Corsair doesn’t really hit those marks here.

Corsair ONE i500 Benchmarks

Back to the charts.

Corsair ONE i500 GPU Frequency

For GPU clock, the RTX 4090 in the Corsair ONE i500 initially boosts up to 2655MHz before falling to an average of 2620MHz. It frequently drops into the 2580MHz range. Our air-cooled 4090s typically stay relatively flat and higher than this.

Corsair ONE i500 CPU Power Throttling

Looking now at CPU power behavior, CPU package power shows the CPU hitting the 240W PL2 limit during the passes until Tau expires and drops power to the lower 200W PL1 that Corsair set. There’s still a momentary higher peak at the beginning of every pass, which lines up with the thermals. Normally for the 14900K under Intel Performance or Extreme profiles, there’s no time limit on PL2, and PL1 would equal PL2, rendering Tau meaningless anyway. Here, they’re forced to use it because the cooler is woefully insufficient.

CPU Frequency

To look at CPU frequency, we’re comparing our original 14900K review data for an all-core 3D rendering workload in Blender against the Corsair build. 

The original review data had an average frequency of 5321MHz P-core and over 4600MHz all-core. The Corsair ONE was already 300MHz below this, at 5031MHz, and is already compromising. The problem is that even this only persists for a minute or two, at which point it falls to the 4689MHz entry that we’re seeing. That’s a massive 632MHz across all P-cores to a combination of compromises and poor design. 632MHz against every P-core will have a multiplying effect where the performance loss cascades.

Corsair ONE i500 Airflow Animation

Before moving to BIOS, we’ll look at the airflow situation. We made a custom 3D animation to help visualize the airflow patterns we observed during testing.

First, the side panels themselves already present a lot of challenges for the fans. The plastic and metal supports block a lot of the intake area, meaning those areas for the fans will be dead, as in, they won’t be able to do anything.

3 fans are revealed from removing the left panel. Some of these are on a hinging mechanism that we actually liked, if not for all the other problems. It’s a good way to get side intake without the panel itself being tethered to a cable. Opening the hinged door reveals the top exhaust fans mounted to the GPU radiator, with one fan attached to CPU liquid temperature.

Closing the doors again, here’s how the air is flowing: This case will mostly behave in a positive pressure way. The bottom fan blows air in unobstructed. The fan directly above it pulls only past the panel and pushes basically straight into the right-most GPU radiator fan. The fan to its left pushes air in, through a radiator, and then will mostly get pulled up and out. 

Opening the bottom fan hinge, this air will mostly hit the exposed GPU components. Because the upper half of the chassis is sectioned-off by the card and because there’s a solid steel plate next to it, most of the air finds its way out through the rear PCIe slot covers. There’s a ton of heat in this area from the PCB and GPU and no active way to get rid of it, plus the card is dividing the case, so a lot of the heat will get trapped and pool around the video card. We think this contributes to a lot of the problems.

As for the upper half: The biggest challenge is for the CPU radiator. The right-most fan will push more air straight into the chassis than the radiator fan next to it, which will struggle with resistance and pressure. The right-most fan is mostly going to feed the GPU exhaust, while the left fan will push warmed CPU air straight into the VRM, then out the GPU radiator. The rear port is empty, but ventilated, and depending on the speed of the various fans, can function either as a passive intake when the system is exhausting more than it’s bringing in, or as exhaust when it is pushing more air in through the side fans.

To support more of these educational animations, visit store.gamersnexus.net

Corsair ONE i500 BIOS

Corsair’s motherboard is the MSI MAG B760M MORTAR WIFI, but with a proprietary BIOS that turns it into the “MORTAR WIFI CORSAIR.” We occasionally see this from the larger SIs, and we always consider it a bad thing as it forces reliance on the SI for updates rather than the motherboard manufacturer.

The board’s BIOS has a build date of 2/2/24, and there weren’t any updated versions on Corsair’s download page until September 9th. That means Corsair didn’t take any action to support its customers with new microcode revisions in the face of Intel’s CPU stability and degradation issues until after MSI itself did. In other words, if Corsair had just used an off-the-shelf board, customers could get normal updates sooner.

Some BIOS settings are good: MSI’s software download tool is disabled and XMP is applied. Almost all CPU values were default except power limits. 

PL1 was set to 200W, PL2 at 240W, and ICCMAX CPU current at 350A. Both power limits are lower than Intel’s notorious June recommendations for the 14900K under the Performance and Extreme profiles.

All these values in the BIOS are also totally locked and unable to be changed by the user. This is both an admission of the subpar cooling capabilities, and a hindrance in any scenario where the user might want something else. 

BIOS also lacks any way to control the fans. Only CPU1 is shown, but this is actually one of the CLC pumps. None of the 5 actual fans are attached to the motherboard itself, and therefore can’t be controlled here.

Corsair ONE i500 Packaging and Accessories

The i500’s packaging was good, with dual layer boxes and thick, tofu-like foam that probably has the word “eco” in its name somewhere. Large, clear unpacking instructions are immediately on top after opening the outer box. We liked how well it was secured at least.

The only accessories included were the wireless antenna. That’s it – no peripherals, no headphone hanger (which was shown in many of the product photos and which influencer videos talked about), and no or extra PSU cables. This is a big negative, especially since the SF1000L PSU inside is a standard part and should remain operational well beyond the useful life of the system as a whole.

There also weren’t any manuals, nor was there a sticker covering the motherboard’s display connectors to help guide novice users in the right direction. And those are the users who will need it because they’re the only people who would buy this. There’s just the most basic setup instructions on the unpacking card and a link to Corsair’s online quick start guide. 

We were surprised by the inclusion of genuinely useful instructions for hardware upgrades: RAM, M.2 and 2.5” SSDs, and an extra PCIe card all get detailed. 

OS Setup and Software

Another positive area for the i500 is in OS setup and software. The Windows 11 out of box experience went as expected and we had zero popups on first boot.

The only actively running non-Windows software was the Corsair One Dashboard. It’s a barebones utility for changing the case lighting and monitoring liquid temperatures and fans speeds; however, it can’t change the fan speeds. It doesn’t even remember your RGB settings all the time. We think it’s strange Corsair didn’t go with the more mature iCUE software here.

The only other bloatware on the system is the Corsair Diagnostics software, a suite of tools from Ultra-X for reading system stats and a variety of stress tests.

As another positive, there weren’t any missing drivers in Device Manager, but the NVIDIA Game Ready Driver was 3 months out of date by the time we bought the system. Some version lag is OK. 3 months is too much.

Acoustics Over Time

The final test is noise testing over time in our hemi-anechoic chamber.

Since we can’t directly control or log the fan RPM on the i500, we have to rely on noise data gathered over time during a full system torture test.

The system is very quiet at idle and during initial periods of load, hovering around 17dBA before briefly rising to about 18dBA at our noise floor of around 14. Then the noise rapidly ramps up during a period of about 100 seconds, reaching about 33dBA, then steadily increasing to settle in at an average of 37.7dBA.

This behavior is due to the fan speeds being set to react to liquid temperature inside the CLCs rather than actual component load or heat. That can work, but the downside to that here is the fan curve is steep, and boils down to basically two modes of operation – slow with hot thermals and relatively quiet or fast and noisy (but still hot).

Here are a few noise samples.

The 2000RPM fans keep this from sounding crazy, but the approach is devoid of nuance, any skill, and lacks a competent configuration. It seems kind of like the “auto” approach to cooling for something that otherwise was supposed to be custom, which is bizarre. Corsair wanted the i500 to be perceived as silent under load, but it’s only quiet as long as the load is sporadic, with heat spikes being absorbed by the liquid. Anything that’s sustained for more than a minute or two will start to get loud. 

Corsair ONE i500 Conclusion

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

The conclusion here is pretty straightforward: Don’t buy the Corsair One i500. Its price is steep and its value is bad.

If we ignore all of its problems, which are bad across its thermals to its acoustics, it still represents a markup of $1,625 or, if on sale, a markup of $1,225 over DIY.

While we don’t think everyone should build a PC and that there are many valid reasons to buy a pre-built, that’s still too much because you can go to other SIs and get a similar form factor system for less of a ripoff. To top it off, the Corsair One i500 isn’t even designed well. 

Moving on to specifics, the B760 board at this price point is an absolute joke, the SSD should be larger, and the GPU VRAM hitting 94 degrees C is literally insane. The solution they’ve built for the graphics card is woefully inept. It is either the biggest cost-cutting solution in the greediest way possible or it’s incompetent as there’s nothing on the VRM components, which results in thermal issues in this case.    

The Corsair ONE i500 also had limited CPU cooling for the 14900K, which is a terrible CPU choice for the build. A 240mm CLC could have easily fit if Corsair made its custom case a few millimeters larger. Alternatively, Corsair could have simply used a lower tier CPU like it’s done in the past as the company had to downclock the 14900K to perform like a lower tier CPU anyway. The user can’t even change the fan settings at all without rewiring the fans to run straight into the motherboard.

Other complaints include the power supply barely having access to air. It’s also bare on accessories and doesn’t include any extra cables. 

On the bright side, the online documentation is good and the Windows setup was mostly clean. But when you’re paying 5 grand for a computer, if it’s going to be marked up as much as the Corsair One i500 is, it needs to at least perform at expected levels.

Corsair heavily marketed the ONE i500 as offering uncompromised performance, which we view as false advertising in this case.


This Case is a Disaster | Tryx LUCA L70 Review

1 octobre 2024 à 23:08
This Case is a Disaster | Tryx LUCA L70 Reviewjimmy_thang October 1, 2024

We examine the Tryx LUCA L70’s thermals, build quality (or lack thereof), and more

The Highlights

  • The LUCA L70 is the first case from Tryx, a company founded by former ASUS, Cooler Master, and Asetek employees
  • The case has the most build quality and assembly issues we’ve ever encountered out of the box
  • The build quality of the L70 is worse than that of cases that cost $200 less
  • Original MSRP: $240
  • Release Date: September 20, 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

Intro

This case has the most build quality and assembly issues we’ve ever encountered out of the box.

There were gouges in the aluminum feet, a corner that was severely bent, deformed fan rails, and other more minor issues -- like the entire motherboard tray and rear panel assembly being bent, bottom support for the hinged door being bent down, and an aluminum plate over the front I/O that was bent. Even if some of these were catalyzed by shipping impacts, Tryx is responsible for not only packing the product in a way they can ship it, but also ensuring that their design is resilient enough to withstand the basics of transit.

Editor's note: This was originally published on September 20, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing, Writing

Patrick Lathan

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Video Editing

Tim Phetdara

3D Animation

Andrew Coleman

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


At least one fault is inherent to the case design: the top panel sagged down, misaligning the snaps for the side and front panels. 

Its snaps were already loose, but knocked out of alignment, they can barely hold its panels on. There's a reason that cases often have a support pillar in the front corner, or at least something like the Lian Li O11 Vision’s triangular bracket.

So we think the build quality is overall worse than the $34 Zondda-O we reviewed, except the Tryx LUCA L70 costs $240.

Tryx is a new company, which may partly explain why we were given a special, later embargo of today. Today is the launch of the case. Strangely, some reviews were selectively permitted to go live before us, something we were not made aware of until they posted. This doesn’t affect our bottom line since you all come to our case reviews for our work, which we appreciate, but it does reflect on what appears to be teething pains for a new company. Some of those same growing pains are seen throughout the case design, and today, we’re reviewing the LUCA L70 case from Tryx, a company which has major funding behind it despite being new. And our hope is that the company can learn from our review for its future projects.

Some quick backstory: Tryx is a brand new manufacturer that first came on the scene with its Panorama Pro CLC, but it also more recently showed off several upcoming case families at Computex, including the LUCA. The LUCA L70 is the first to market, with a mesh-fronted L70 Air variant likely following at a later date. 

Tryx is a vaguely cosmic-y themed company. “LUCA” stands for “Last Universal Common Ancestor”; as for the other cases that have been revealed so far, Otavia is the name of what could be the oldest known animal fossil -- fitting for a case with a front panel essentially made out of future dust.

But despite being new, Tryx is not inexperienced. The company was founded by former members of ASUS, Cooler Master, and Asetek. Asetek is the forlorn water cooling company that has been largely replaced in the DIY market. Asetek has put some serious marketing effort behind Tryx, which is its premiere partner for the new generation of pump in its Panorama cooler. Tryx also hosted an expensive influencer event for its launch in China, where it featured space-themed set dressing and hosted influencers from Bilibili.

So the company has some money to it and isn’t just some small, fresh startup; in fact, the former Cooler Master General Manager of the Case Business Unit is a co-founder of Tryx.

That’s the backstory. Let’s get into the case.

The L70 is priced at $240 for the two variants, black and white. The FAQ states that "under normal airflow conditions, the case will not experience negative pressure that could cause an explosion," which we really hope is a joke about… spaceships, or something. Regardless, the L70 non-Air doesn't ship with any fans, so explosion danger is minimal.

Tryx Luca L70 Specs

ModelLUCA L70
Size (LxWxH)(L)540 x (W)262 x (H)572 mm
MaterialSteel, 4.0 mm TG, Aluminum, Plastic, Stainless steel
Motherboard SupportE-ATX (280mm Maximum)/ATX/Micro-ATX/Mini-ITX
Expansion Slots7
Input/Output Ports1 x Power button, 4 x USB 3.2 GEN1, 1 x USB 3.2 gen 2x2 TYPE C, 1 x Audio/Speaker
Fan SupportTop: 2 x 120 mm / 2 x 140 mm (bottom PSU placement: 3 x 120 mm / 3 x 140 mm)Side: 3 x 120 mm / 3 x 140 mmBottom: 3 x 120 mm / 3 x 140 mm (top PSU placement: 1 x 120 mm / 1 x 140 mm)Rear: 1 x 120 mm
Radiator SupportTop: 240 mm (bottom PSU placement: 240 / 280 / 360 / 420 mm)Side: 240 / 280 / 360 / 420 mmBottom: 240 / 280 / 360 mm (top PSU placement: 120 mm)
StorageUp to 2 x 3.5" HDD or 9 x 2.5" SSD
CPU Cooler Height Clearance170mm Maximum
Power SupportATX, 190mm or less
GPU Support460mm Maximum
Cable Management Space63mm
Net Weight16.2 KG
Gross Weight19.6 KG
Warranty2 years

Specs copied from manufacturer materials, please read review for our own measurements and opinions

The Build

The Tryx L70 has an ASUS ROG look to it, specifically reminding us of the old Strix Helios: it's big, it's expensive, and there are huge chunks of aluminum, which is an expensive material. We weren't impressed by the Helios based on its price and thermal performance, but we've also kept one in our set background for months because, like the L70, it's impressive to look at.

If any part of the case's appearance is divisive, we expect it to be the top panel with its toilet bowl angles centered on the shiny stainless-steel nameplate. Or maybe the aluminum side that extends all the way to the floor.

Now with the top panel, there’s a good idea there. We don’t get too much into the subjective, but this case sort of demands it: We feel like a more seasoned company might try to pull this motif across more of the case, but as it stands, it is an almost random-looking assortment of materials and geometric patterns. We do think there’s something in that top panel design and like it overall, despite our issues elsewhere in the enclosure.

We’ll start with a flyover of the negatives. We're going to be nitpicky here, because there are a lot of small problems that are hard to get past at $240.

We already listed the litany of issues with gouges, bends, deformed rails, loose snaps, and caving-in panels near the top of the review. Those complaints remain -- but we do have more. 

We’ll start with this one: Tryx says the LUCA is intended to use bottom-to-top airflow, but large parts of the bottom of the case are surrounded by an impenetrable aluminum curtain. The bottom fan bracket sits on top of redundant fan mounts built into the case. The bottom vent is a typical design with punched holes backed by a filter, but it would have benefited from being more open, like the Antec C8, to allow those fans to breathe.

Tryx also makes the claim that the case is “-13% smaller desktop footprint.” Now, you might ask, “13% smaller than what?” After asking, we learned that this is apparently in comparison to dual-chamber cases. Now, again, the natural inclination is to ask about which one. It’s made-up. No one knows.

Regardless of how many percentage points smaller than something imaginary the L70 is, it’s still large. With our test system installed, the whole PC weighs almost 24kg, but the weight is only really a problem because it causes flexing when picking up the case, especially with the lack of support between the two glass panels. We complain sometimes about completely toolless glass panels, but this is the first case we've reviewed in a long time that has felt like a panel might actually fall off. And actually, while we were taking b-roll, the glass side panel did pop-out when we repositioned the case.

We repeatedly had problems with the I/O cables not being long enough as routed out of the box, which is worsened by needing to route cables around the hinged magnetic SSD mounting bracket. The small plate that extends the motherboard tray also made things worse; we installed it because that's what the manual shows, but at the bottom of the motherboard it partially blocks cutouts that are needed for I/O and fans, and at the top it partially blocks off cutouts that are needed for CPU power on non-back-connect motherboards. It seems like this was either never built in or not thought-through.

There are multiple locations in the case where captive thumbscrews are used inappropriately: On the motherboard tray, they're used to fasten two sheets of steel that are nearly flush, so the threads wedge the two pieces together as the screw is removed. Another is used to fasten the PSU cage in place, but it has to be completely removed in order to move the cage despite being captive. Both the motherboard tray and the PSU cage use tiny flush-head screws in addition to the thumbscrews, so you have to use a screwdriver no matter what.

There are 9x 2.5" drive mounts in the Tryx, 3x on the "SSD Mounting Bracket" and 6x on the "SSD/HDD Mounting Bracket," which can alternatively mount 2x 3.5" HDDs. Cable covers are unnecessary, but doubly so when you can't even see through the side panel: they chop up the huge 63mm-deep cable management space for no reason, requiring routing around them, and mounting drives to the covers requires leaving cable slack so that they can hinge open. 

The SSD bracket can either open or close the side vent; in the closed position, the cables point the wrong way, and in the open position, cables can't fit past the other bracket. None of this was designed well in our opinion. If you do get a drive in there, you won't be able to access the cable retention clip. The other SSD/HDD bracket has raised areas that conflict with some of the 2.5" mounts, and depending on the case configuration, the slots at the  back may strain your cables to their limits.

We'll skim through the rest of our list quickly. The rubber cable grommets are easy to accidentally pop out and harder to get back in. There are no fan screws included at all. The tolerances between the frame that screws onto the PSU and the PSU cage are annoyingly tight and we have to fight to get it installed every time. The listed maximum PSU clearance is 190mm, but that would bend cables at a very sharp angle, and any PSU longer than 150mm will begin to block the cable cutout on top of the cage. The product page notes that the case supports ATX and M-ATX BTF motherboards, but only with the top PSU configuration. Finally, the power button just sucks as it’s really stiff and has to be pressed directly in the center.

And now we’ll get to the neutral aspects.

When we got our first look at the L70 back at Computex, we reported that there might be some engraving service offered for the nameplate, but that's not currently an option. Instead, Tryx told us that there's intentionally space left under the existing engraving so that customers can add their own. There’s some HYTE-style filler about "discovered an unknow" so that customers can add their own. Oddly, this is now the third time we’ve seen a company misuse this word, now ticking the boxes for both misuse as a noun and as a past participle used as an adjective. Intel’s A380 had into the “unkonw” and “into the unknow.”

The nameplate-handle-thing is paired with a hidden handle at the rear of the case. They're sturdy enough to lift the system, but the case is very tall and very heavy, so it's far more practical to lift it from the bottom if you're trying to put it on a desk. We feel the same way about the Helios' weird velcro luggage handles (read our review here).

The PSU cage can be installed either above or below the motherboard: in the top of the case, the PSU can either pull air through the filtered top panel, or (as shown in the manual) pull CPU exhaust out of the case the old-school way. 

As a result, the whole motherboard tray can be removed, which is actually pretty useful for installing and testing components outside of the case before committing. This is probably the best thing in the case.

Cable management space is cavernous at 63mm, so that’s good. There's no question that the L70 has enough space for cables. There are smaller quality of life touches as well, like the magnetic top panel, built-in GPU support, and the spring-loaded expansion slot clip (although all the expansion slots include screws anyway).

We don't have information yet on the L70 Air, but there are definitely cutouts for fans behind the glass front panel in the L70. Both the theoretical L70 Air and the existing L70 have hinged front panels that make it easy to access the inside of the case for quick adjustments without clearing your desk and taking the side panel off.

With the bottom PSU configuration, Tryx claims support for 420mm radiators simultaneously on the top and side mounts. The top radiator and fans would overlap part of the side mount, so tube routing would need to be planned accordingly, but the top mount in particular has a ton of space to work with as long as the PSU is installed in the bottom of the case.

Finally, Tryx draws a dotted line on the outside of the cardboard box for a cat door. There's nothing that makes this particular box a better cat toy than any other, but it's cute, so Tryx gets a point here. We actually liked that.

Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Tryx Luca L70 Thermals

Although Tryx does sell fans, the LUCA L70 doesn't come with any. Our method of dealing with that is to run all tests with our standardized set of three Noctua fans (two 140mm intake, one 120mm exhaust).

For our baseline test, we ran the case as it shipped with the PSU at the top of the case. We kept the PSU fan-side-down as depicted in the manual, which means it should help with CPU thermals by pulling exhaust out of the case. The PSU's zero RPM mode is always turned off during our case thermal tests.

For tests with side intake through the aluminum side panel, we kept the hinged SSD mounting bracket open. For tests with bottom intake, we kept it closed.

Tryx plans to release a dedicated vertical GPU bracket for the L70 in Q4 of this year, but it doesn't exist yet, so we haven't tested it.

As for competitors, the Tryx is most similar to the over-the-top halo products from ASUS ROG (Strix Helios, Hyperion GR701) and Cooler Master ( "The Berserker" HAF 700, HAF 700 EVO), but it's been a long time since we reviewed one of those. Among the cases we have tested, the Lian Li O11D EVO XL has the most overlap and closest price, followed by the HYTE Y70 non-touch. We're thinking of big, pricey cases without stock fans that are designed to be conversation pieces: cases like Antec's C8 and Flux Pro and Fractal Design's Torrent are more competitive from a price and functionality perspective, but they don't look as crazy.

CPU Full Load Thermals - Noise Normalized

We chose the side intake configuration as a baseline in order to give the L70 the best possible chance. The two 140mm intake fans were positioned low in the case to get some active airflow under the GPU, and the 120mm was positioned as exhaust behind the CPU cooler as usual.

This first test is noise-normalized and for CPU thermals, with noise established at a matched 27 dBA threshold in our hemi-anechoic chamber. The average CPU temperature across all cores was 50 degrees Celsius above ambient, while the P-cores alone were 54 degrees over ambient. That makes it slightly warmer than the Y70, which averaged 49 degrees all-core and and 53 for P-cores in a similar side intake configuration with the same fans and at the same noise level. Despite being OK, the L70 is in company of some of the lower performers on this chart so far. 

The O11D EVO XL under the same conditions was even better, up at 43 degrees all-core -- and that’s with the same fans at the same noise levels, so it’s as like-for-like as it can be. This is a test that favors traditional front-to-back airflow: the bottom-intake C8 is tied with the L70, while the new Flux Pro has a significantly lower all-core average of 41 degrees above ambient.

GPU Full Load Thermals - Standardized Fans

Now we’re moving to standardized fans in all tested cases on the chart, all set to 100% fan speed, with the CPU and GPU fans remaining controlled and fixed as always. This means every case on here has the same fans, which also means some cases -- like the Antec Flux Pro -- will be worse than stock, as we are reducing the fan count. The test is still useful for looking at standard airflow patterns in a controlled way and is one we run specifically because our audience heavily requested it.

With the baseline setup, average GPU temperature was 42 degrees Celsius above ambient with the memory junction at 48 and the hotspot at 55. Moving the PSU to the bottom of the case resulted in temperatures about one degree lower in each category, whereas keeping the PSU at the top and moving the intake fans to the bottom made temperatures significantly worse, with GPU averaging 47, memory junction 55, and hotspot 62 degrees above ambient. This is a massive increase and suggests that it may be best to only have one option.

The change may seem counterintuitive since the bottom intake slots are directly beneath the GPU, but those slots are far more restricted than the side intake ones, to the extent that one of the fans is basically useless. 

Removing the central section of the aluminum base helped a little, lowering temperatures by 1-2 degrees versus unaltered bottom intake, but the side intake results remain far superior.

Using the baseline side intake numbers for comparison against other cases, the L70 actually did fairly well, with the Y70 averaging 41 degrees above ambient for the GPU (versus the L70's 42) and the O11D EVO XL averaging 44. 

CPU Full Load Thermals - Standardized Fans

In the same standardized fan tests at full case fan speed, the CPU temperature averaged 45 degrees Celsius above ambient and 49 on the P-cores in the baseline configuration. The bottom PSU configuration had no significant effect on CPU temperatures: if we didn't already have a dedicated case fan for exhaust, using the PSU to pull hot air would have a more significant impact. Bottom intake was worse for CPU thermals (as it usually is with our test bench), with all-core rising to 50 and the P-cores to 54 degrees above ambient just because the fans are pretty far away from the actual cooler. As with the GPU temperatures, removing the central section of the base improved those temperatures by about one degree, but still not enough to match the side intake results.

The L70 doesn't compare as well on this CPU chart as it did on the GPU one, with the Y70 side intake averaging 43 degrees above ambient all-core and the O11D EVO XL side intake a step beyond at 41 degrees, a relatively large improvement.

In our standardized fan tests, side intake may work well for GPU thermals, but front intake is better for CPU thermals. For example, the Flux Pro averaged 38 degrees here, and almost all of our front intake results are below 40.

GPU Full Load Thermals - Noise-Normalized

Back to the noise normalized test and with stock case fans where present, the GPU averaged 43 degrees above ambient. That’s better than the O11D EVO XL side intake at 45 degrees and the Y70 side intake at 48 degrees. Memory junction and hotspot temperatures followed the same order. The other cases on this chart used their own stock fans if available, which means cases like the Torrent and Flux Pro that ship with serious out-of-the-box cooling gained back an advantage that they lacked in the standardized fan test.

CPU Full Load Thermals - Full Speed

Finally on the CPU, tested with stock fans where present and at full speed, the Tryx L70 lands far down on the chart. It’s at about the halfway point when tested with a bottom-mounted PSU and side intake, with two of three of the worst results secured at the very bottom, depending on configuration.

VRM & RAM Full Load Thermals - Noise-Normalized

Finishing the noise normalized testing, the average VRM temperature in the L70 was 33 degrees above ambient and the SPD Hub sensor on the DRAM averaged 27 degrees above ambient. That puts the L70 right in the middle of the chart, neither unusually good nor bad, and between the cooler O11D EVO XL side intake and the warmer Y70 side intake.

Tryx Luca L70 Conclusion

Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!

We like it when case manufacturers try something different, and the L70 is something different. But it still needs to nail the basics.

If performance is something you're concerned with, you should watch our Antec Flux Pro or Fractal Torrent reviews instead. That's not the L70's focus. It's possible to get decent airflow through the L70 if you don't rely on the bottom mount, but like the HYTE Y70, the performance only needs to be good enough to enable a cool-looking build. 

Looks are so subjective that we don’t want to comment on them much more than we already have. It’s really this simple: If you like the way it looks, and this goes for any case, then that’s all that matters as long as it ticks all the functional boxes. It doesn’t matter much what we think about the looks. This teeters somewhere in the void between “weird” and “cool,” depending on who you are, but one thing it definitely is not is “plain.” If you find that appealing, then great. Our biggest concern is its build quality, where we think the case simply fails. 

We'd only recommend the L70 if you're dead-set on its appearance and you're willing to deal with inconveniences and problems we associate with far cheaper cases, like $200 cheaper. If you have your heart set on this because it fits some theme, and if you can put up with the rest, then Tryx is the only place you’ll get a case that looks like this.

The Y70 and O11D EVO XL are big and flashy too, but they're also way easier to build in and from tried-and-true design lineages.

We don't want to make it impossible for new companies to start up and try new things without all the established resources of a company like Fractal Design. We want to provide good feedback and encourage those companies to improve, and based on how responsive and helpful Tryx has been through this review process, we have hope at least that they might listen. At least on the comms side, Tryx has hired the right person for the job and someone we have faith in. We only know two of the Tryx people from previous companies, and we think both of them do good work. The hard part with a company is getting all those individual pieces to click together, and that only happens with time and practice. We’ll see how things go for Tryx.

While we can’t recommend this one, we hope to see the company refine its design and take this to heart. There are two ways to approach a review like this. Cooler Master, despite its issues with our H500P review initially, did eventually make massive changes that resulted in us fully recommending its fixed variations of that product. Hopefully Tryx launches a revision 1.5 of this case with some changes.


Excellent Budget Case: Lian Li DAN A3-mATX Review & Benchmarks

27 septembre 2024 à 22:56
Excellent Budget Case: Lian Li DAN A3-mATX Review & Benchmarksjimmy_thang September 27, 2024

We test the Lian Li Dan A3-mATX-WD’s build quality, thermals, design, and more

The Highlights

  • The A3-mATX is a micro-ATX case that offers either a plastic front panel or one with wood slats
  • The case lacks good cable management options
  • The A3-mATX is a good, affordable case that doesn’t feel cheap
  • Original MSRP: $70 (plastic front panel), $80 (wood front panel)
  • Release Date: May 2024

Table of Contents

  • AutoTOC
Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.

Intro

We liked the A3-mATX enough that we made a custom 3D animation to help explain a peculiar airflow pattern that formed, where we found that adding side intake fans can dramatically hurt GPU thermal performance even though it helped the CPU.
But we liked the case because it’s easy to pull apart, heavily ventilated everywhere, has a huge amount of space in a relatively confined size, and it’s one of the most barebones interiors you could work with -- but in a productive way. It’s also $70 for the plastic-fronted version and $85 for this new Fractal-inspired wooden-paneled one. It ends up being one of the cheapest cases we’ve reviewed lately, which is good, because the budget market is still pretty strong with last-gen parts.

Editor's note: This was originally published on September 12, 2024 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.


Credits


Test Lead, Host, Writing

Steve Burke

Testing, Writing

Jeremy Clayton

Camera, Video Editing

Vitalii Makhnovets

Camera

Tim Phetdara

3D Animation

Andrew Coleman

Writing, Web Editing

Jimmy Thang


And in spite of the $70 price for the base model, the case manages to avoid feeling cheap. The panels are solid and avoid that cheap, stamped steel wobble that you’ll feel on a lot of cheaper case panels. The top gets reinforced by radius at the borders, while the sides are reinforced with nearly 2mm steel along the inner edges. The only thing that really feels cheap is the original plastic front panel.

The above image showcases the case’s original panel (in white) against the newer wooden one. At a distance, the wooden one is almost indistinguishable from Fractal’s North styling. Beyond the wood slats, the panel significantly changes the front characteristics of the case by ventilating it heavily.

Going micro-ATX gives access to a broader range of cheaper components, but also means simpler mechanisms that are cheaper to make. Making a case like the Terra or NCORE 100 requires a lot of fine-tuning to fit everything, but mATX makes things simpler. Sometimes, that’s all we want.

A3-mATX Overview

The A3-MATX is clearly aimed at the budget market: It’s almost entirely stamped steel, has few accessories, and is generally a simple, empty box. It doesn’t include much other than the case itself and some screws.

There are a couple of optional accessories, but they’re all sold as DLC: 

The new panel can be bought separately for $24 for those who already bought the original case, or $10 more than the price difference. There’s also a vertical GPU kit for $50 (which is a proportionally huge jump for a baseline $70-$85 case) and a glass side panel for $13. 

We recommend against using both the glass panel and a vertical GPU at the same time, because the GPU would end up too close to the glass and will suffocate for air.

A3-mATX Competition & Alternatives

To get everyone up to speed, some of the price competition looks like this:

Fractal’s Pop Air Mini RGB is $60 on sale and includes 3 fans. This is a much larger case, but competitive on price and still mATX. Sama is a supplier in the industry, but also sells to consumers. Its ARGB Q5 is also $60 with 3 fans. They also have the IM01 Pro at $62 and the AR01-RGB at $70. Montech is selling its Air 100 mATX case for $70 with 4 fans, Thermaltake’s View 170 is also $70 with 3 fans, and ASUS’ AP201 is available at $75 without fans. Lian Li’s own O11 Air Mini is a large, more expensive alternative. Thermaltake’s Versa H18 would be another, this one at $55.

Compared to the preceding A4-H2O at $150, the $70-$85 price of the A3 is aggressive. That’s true too of the SSUPD Meshroom D at $100. Both the A4 and Meshroom are also manufactured by Lian Li, but are limited to ITX motherboards.

A3-mATX Basics

Dimensions for the A3-mATX are 456x194x322mm, coming to 28.5L in volume – larger than the claimed 26L due to the usual suspects of rear protrusions and the case’s feet. 

The A3-mATX is heavily ventilated across the entire chassis, including the top panel, both sides, and with the wood model, also the front. The back also has large gaps in its ventilation for another fan mount, with even more holes punched out of the bottom. 

The only truly solid panel is on the non-wood variant with its front panel. 

The A3-mATX technically has 10 fan mounts, but some configurations force giving up one or two fans depending on the location of the PSU mount. Lian Li lists support for 360mm liquid coolers in the top, bottom, and left side – more on that bracket later. If you put a closed-loop liquid cooler in the floor with its pump in the CPU block, that pump will be much more likely to die. The liquid needs to be above the pump so that air doesn’t collect in the pump itself. The bottom could still be useful for open loop radiators or for pump-in-rad and pump-in-tube designs.

We also noticed that some motherboards may collide with 140mm-wide top-mount radiators when coupled with fans.  

The case also comes with side mount options. We actually observed that the side mount makes it possible to worsen GPU thermals in a way that may seem counter-intuitive, so let’s explore that.

We’ll get ahead of ourselves for the thermal testing later in this review. Here’s a chart showing the side configured with 2x intake fans and a top-exhaust liquid cooler as compared against just the system with just top exhaust (no extra fans) and against 2 bottom intake fans with top exhaust. This is with the plastic front, not the wood front. We’ll get to that later.

The impact to GPU thermals is massive. We measured about an 11-degree drop in average GPU temperature by getting rid of the side intake, extra fans. To help make this easier to understand, we made a custom 3D animation and we’ll come back to thermals later.

Our animation explains what we think is happening. When the system is configured with only the top exhaust fans, the system is in a negative pressure setup. In PC building terminology, this means there is more forced outflow through fans than intake, from the perspective of the case. As a result, air will naturally find its way in through effectively every hole in the case, but especially the two closest ones: The large, empty fan mount in the back and the empty mesh on the left side panel. This air flows straight in and out the liquid cooler through its fans.

As for the GPU, its fans are close to the bottom and to the unused PCIe slot covers in the back. This is where the GPU will pull its air in, so it will be fed cool exterior air within mere centimeters of the outside of the case. That’s great for the GPU.

When we add two side intake fans to this configuration, especially two which will have greater pressure than the exhaust fans, everything changes. The exhaust fans are already battling resistance from the radiator, so the two side intake fans will end up creating a new pressure system. Now, air immediately outside the mesh side panel will find itself pulled toward the fans and shot into the case above the GPU, which will greatly benefit CPU cooling in our tests later. The downside of this is that the lower third of the side panel that was previously feeding the video card intake is now less utilized for the video card, and instead, most of that air will move either directly into the fans or will draft into the case and be pulled up by the currents. The end result is that most of this lower-third side intake no longer feeds the video card, suffocating it for air.

Instead, the video card is left to pull only from the bottom. It also isn’t pulling air in through the PCIe slot covers anymore and will instead be exhausting air through them as a result of the pressure change. There is more resistance for air to come in than for air to go out, so it will naturally want to find its way out of the computer in that region. Likewise, the flow-through of the GPU is now facing a pillar of air coming in, which will reduce the speed at which it can exit this area of the case. 

If we remove those two side fans, the original layout allowed a straight column of air to form from the flow-through fan to the top exhaust fans, efficiently removing air from the middle ground.

And as usual, all of this type of testing is heavily dependent on the other components within the case. Your results may vary with different fans, a different video card, or a different CPU cooler. For purposes of why the thermals behave the way they do in our configuration, the above explains it.

The empty layout and relatively large area allows a lot of different air and liquid cooling configurations. This isn’t a true successor to the A4, but it doesn’t appear to be intended as one. It’s doing something else.

Internally, there’s enough space to install a custom water cooling loop without going completely insane from fitment issues – maybe even with dual 360s. It also fits much larger modern video cards. And, of course, it also brings the price floor down because microATX boards are often pretty cheap. 

Moving to the front panel, the wood version has an easily-removable dust filter retained with magnets. There’s no extra fan mount in front with this new panel, though even if you forced one to fit, most of the mesh is obstructed by the wood. It’s best to view this as a passive area of flow.

Coming back to the power supply, the case can support SFX and ATX PSUs up to 220mm long on the right or front walls using a slightly clumsy mounting bracket. The vertical rails alternatively support an SSD bracket. There’s also a strange optional way to mount an ATX PSU to the SSD tray using standoffs. This extreme flexibility results in such a complex web of component compatibility that Lian Li created 9 entire tables for it, separate from the manual. All of this was done without a mess of complicated and customized hardware and brackets thanks to the departure from a tinier ITX box.

GPUs up to 4 slots thick and 415mm long can technically fit, depending on where and how long the PSU is. However, when using a GPU this large, be advised that it will effectively cut the case in half and severely change the airflow patterns. The GPU will only be able to pull from the bottom and rear PCIe slot covers, meaning side intake will significantly hurt its performance. When using the vertical GPU bracket, that’s reduced to 3.5 slots and 355mm in length. Again, we’d advise against the glass panel for a vertical GPU configuration. This would also reduce CPU cooler access to air.

The optional vertical GPU mount is good and bad:

On the good side, it’s a pretty universal and easy-to-install design that looks like it could be used in more than one case, as it attaches to the bottom fan mount locations, which are standard 120mm spacing.

On the bad side, we think not integrating into the rear I/O of the case itself is a sub-optimal solution that makes plugging or unplugging display cables an annoying operation, even with how infrequent that is in normal use. It requires removing the left side panel and fishing it through the replacement PCIe bracket grommet. Unfortunately, the pass-through doesn’t line up with the GPU itself, making it that much more awkward. It does work, just not well. 

NVIDIA 40 Series Founders Edition cards have no problem fitting inside. The ASUS Strix 4090 fits, but would require careful consideration to not put pressure on the power connector. The massive Gigabyte Aorus Master just barely doesn’t fit due to how tall the card is around the PCIe bracket. But just because it fits doesn’t mean it’d be a good combination for thermals, and we’d recommend against any cards of that size in this case.

The Build - Positives

Despite the clunkiness of the SSD and PSU mounting solution, we like how the tabs at the bottom keep them in place while securing the top with screws, and found the design simple and functional. There’s an additional 3.5” or 2.5” drive mount in the front floor of the case, but using it blocks off the forward-most fan mount.

Front I/O is good: It has 2x USB-A, 1x USB-C, and separate mic and headphone jacks – something we prefer over single combo jacks.

A3-mATX Cable Management

Cable management in general is a weak point. The cable management solution appears to be “it’s huge, so put them wherever.” It isn’t as crafted as some of the competition.

There are no channels or covers and there isn’t really any space behind the motherboard. Tie-down points are limited. We’re left having to just bundle most of them up into a clump. 

Similarly, the front panel USB 3 cable is short enough that it could pose some clean cable management challenges when using a mini-ITX motherboard depending on where the USB 3 header is, but it wouldn’t be a problem with mATX. 

Installing a CLC in the top of the case blocks off access to the top edge of the motherboard, so pre-running those cables first is something we’d strongly advise. This could have been mitigated by the top fan bracket also being removable and allowing for cable adjustments after the fact, but would likely add cost.

White is known in the industry to be a challenge for color matching across materials. On the white version, the color doesn’t match across some of the internal cables, connectors, and the AC power plug on the rear of the case.

This combined with the competition in the mATX case market pushes us towards favoring the wood version – it at least doesn’t feel cheap. You also got a little bit of a visual flair without going up to the price levels of something like the Fractal North

Time to get into thermals.

Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)

A3-mATX Thermals

All tests were performed with a Fractal Lumen 240mm closed loop liquid cooler with the pump and fans set to 100%. Any tests with additional fans also have those at 100%. The 4070 FE (watch our review) has its fans controlled for all tests.

CPU Thermals - Full Torture

Here’s the CPU full torture thermal chart.

In this testing, baseline stock testing between the wood panel and plastic panel ended up about the same: 45.5 and 46.1 degrees over ambient for those means they are within error of each other. Testing the base model with a top exhaust CLC and 2x side intake fans boosts its performance massively, with a huge gain over every other configuration. The side fans really help the CPU cooling, despite hurting GPU cooling.

The second best P-core average thermals come from the wood front panel version with the CLC in the top as exhaust, and two intake fans in the bottom. This results in 44C over ambient, with noise levels only marginally raised over the base version with its solid front panel and glass side panel.

It’s clear throughout the results that the wood front panel with its open mesh areas lets slightly more noise escape the case in general. The thermal data leans slightly cooler for like configurations as well, but both the thermal and noise results are indistinguishable and mostly fall within margin of error. 

Removing the two case fans puts the case in “wood stock” configuration, which is 1.5C warmer and not bad, all things considered. Other configurations filter in below, with the base vertical GPU mount and CLC side exhaust setups coming in last at about 48C over ambient. 

GPU Thermals - Full Torture

For GPU thermals, the top non-problematic result from CPU thermals is now the leader in GPU thermals at 47C over ambient. Considering the reasonable 32dBA noise level in our hemi-anechoic chamber, we’ll point to this configuration as the way to go unless your aim is to minimize noise as much as possible.

Bottom-mounted fans benefit the GPU, unsurprisingly, with the result at 47 degrees GPU core. We see another appearance at 49.8, showing that the glass panel costs us a couple degrees in this layout.

Mounting the CLC to the side as exhaust shows an interesting 3C split between the wood front and base versions of the case, favoring the wood. 

Unfortunately for vertical GPU enjoyers, that configuration was one of the worst results if not counting the troublesome side intake configuration we talked about earlier. We suspect recirculation is to blame for parts of this, as the exhaust coming out of both the PCIe slot area and the flow-through area don’t have easy paths to get out of the case naturally.

RAM and VRM Thermals - Full Torture

Next we’ll take a brief look at RAM and motherboard VRM temperatures. We’ve started tracking these in case reviews to better understand if any hot pockets -- not that kind -- of air build up around those components.

Surprising nobody, it turns out that intake fans blowing air directly at the motherboard is great for the thermals of these components even in spite of the GPU thermals.

Most of the results are within a narrow band of 2-3 degrees. Mounting the CLC to the side as exhaust raises both SPD hubs and VRM temperatures roughly 5C higher, so we wouldn’t recommend that for users who know they’ll be running particularly memory intensive workloads with hot memory.

A3-mATX Conclusion

Grab a GN15 All-Over Print Component Mouse Mat for a high-quality mousing surface that'll fit your keyboard & mouse. These mouse mats use a high-quality yellow rubber underside, a blue stitched border for fray resistance, and are covered in PC parts. This is the best way to support our work and keeps us ad-free to support consumer-first reviews!

The Lian Li DAN A3-mATX has the right ingredients to be a popular case among budget conscious micro-ATX builders. And if you don’t have a specific reason to want ATX, even if that reason is as basic as just liking how it looks or fills the space, then it may be time to seriously consider going micro-ATX. This case gives a lot of options.

It’s fairly inexpensive at $70-$85 and has good build quality (not counting the plastic front on the base version). We also think adding the option for the wood front panel was the right move by Lian Li, raising the perception of quality. We think the execution was completely fine given the $15 price bump if you buy it new. 

Subjectively, we think it looks way better this way. The mesh front doesn’t make-or-break thermal performance, but was a nice consideration.

Despite its larger size, it doesn’t feel like there’s any considerable wasted space or nonsensical decisions (assuming components large enough to use the volume). We suspect this is a product of Dan Cases’ long history of ITX case design, where every millimeter counts. That mindset still shows despite the A3-mATX being pushed into larger sizes than what anyone would consider SFF. 

Not much gets in the way while building, either. It’s a very simple build experience. We think this would make a good beginner case, contrary to what we see in more complex ITX cases.

The cable management is relatively spartan. The size brute forces that aspect, but there are limited pre-fab cable management features. Vertical GPU mounting would have limited usefulness, and side mounting intake fans should be done with care. You also give up easy access to the top of the motherboard in some configurations.

This market segment also has some fierce competition from other cases that may offer more absolute value from things like included fans. Micro-ATX isn’t purely about size, unlike going for ultra-small ITX builds, so some competition is also just larger. A quick list of cases to check out would include the Fractal Pop Air Mini RGB, the Montech Air 100 mATX, the Thermaltake View 170, the ASUS AP201, and the SAMA series of cases, like the ARGB Q5. Other than Montech’s Air 100 and Fractal’s Pop Air series, we do not have personal hands-on time with any of these, so can’t vouch for them; however, we wanted you to be aware of other options to help as you research other reviews.

We’re viewing this case like an mATX-sized spiritual successor to the original Cooler Master NR200P. That case basically became a de-facto standard in online discussions as a simple and cost effective choice for anyone that wanted ITX without too many headaches.

We liked the A3-mATX. It’s easy to work with, fits a wide range of CPU coolers and video cards, and it’s relatively “cheap” (by modern standards) for the quality. Thermals are solid as long as you set up a good airflow pattern and avoid making the fans fight each other. 

Overall, we’re neutral to positive on the A3-mATX. It’s straightforward, the cons are relatively inconsequential with planning, and there’s not much to complain about. The target user for this case would be those who don’t need full ATX size, but also don’t want to pay the ITX tax. It hits the “good enough” mark in just about every critical area. But for a $70 to $85 case, “good enough” becomes “good.”


❌
❌