The Dell Pro Precision 7 16 is the higher-end 16-inch mobile workstation in Dell’s current Pro Precision lineup. Our review unit is built around significantly more GPU power than the 5 16s Intel tested alongside it. It pairs a Series 3 Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, a 16-core Panther Lake processor with a 50 TOPS NPU, with NVIDIA RTX PRO 3000 Blackwell graphics and 12GB of GDDR7, 64GB of LPDDR5x at 8533 MT/s, and two 1TB Gen5 SSDs in RAID 0. The panel is a 16-inch UHD+ Tandem OLED with touch and a 120Hz variable refresh rate, running at 3840 x 2400. In testing, the discrete GPU rendered the Blender Monster scene at 1,555.53 samples per minute, roughly 2.7 times the integrated Arc Pro B390 in the 5 16s Intel, while the same configuration recorded the shortest battery runtime of any Pro Precision we have tested.

Compared with the Pro Precision 5 16s Intel, the 7 16 trades some portability and battery life for substantially more GPU performance and a higher-end feature set. Our configuration adds the RTX PRO 3000, a 96Wh battery, a 165 W adapter, a second Gen5 drive bay, and two Thunderbolt 5 ports alongside Thunderbolt 4. It is a better fit for engineers, designers, visualization specialists, video professionals, and other users whose applications benefit from dedicated NVIDIA graphics. The 7 16 also features a large haptic trackpad, which immediately differentiates the keyboard deck from the 5 16s.

The RTX PRO 3000 Blackwell is the mobile professional card in the NVIDIA Blackwell generation, with 12GB of GDDR7 and certified drivers for professional applications. Combined with the 50 TOPS NPU in the Core Ultra 9 386H, the system can run local AI work across the CPU, the discrete GPU, or the dedicated accelerator, and our Procyon testing covers all three paths. Coverage also includes professional graphics, rendering, content creation, storage, and battery.

The Dell Pro Precision 7 16 starts at $3,293, while the hardware in our review unit costs approximately $8,245. Dell’s public configurator does not currently allow us to reproduce the two-drive Gen5 RAID 0 configuration exactly, even though the otherwise equivalent single-drive configuration is priced at $7,795 in our brief. Applying the same $440 price difference for the second Gen5 SSD brings the as-shipped equivalent to that figure. Commercial buyers may see different pricing through account agreements and volume purchases, so Dell.com’s single-unit pricing is best used as a reference. The system is now available on the Dell Pro Precision 7 Series 16 product page.

Dell Pro Precision 7 16 Specifications

Specification	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (PW716260)
Model	Dell Pro Precision 7 Series 16 (PW716260)
Processor	Intel Core Ultra 9 386H vPro Enterprise (Series 3), 16 cores / 16 threads, up to 4.9GHz, 50 TOPS NPU
Graphics	NVIDIA RTX PRO 3000 Blackwell, 12GB GDDR7
Memory	64GB LPDDR5x, 8533 MT/s, dual-channel, onboard, non-ECC
Storage	Two 1TB Gen5 SED-ready SSDs in RAID 0
Display	16″ UHD+ Tandem OLED 3840 x 2400, touch, 120Hz VRR, 500 nits, 100% DCI-P3, VESA DisplayHDR True Black 1000, anti-reflection
Camera	8MP HDR RGB + IR with User Presence Detection and ExpressSign-In
Wireless	Intel Wi-Fi 7 BE211 2×2, Bluetooth 6.0
Keyboard	Zero-lattice spill-resistant with mini-LED backlighting
Security	TPM 2.0, FIPS 140-3, TCG certified, post-quantum cryptography, chassis intrusion detection, SED storage, Windows Hello facial recognition
Battery	6-cell, 96Wh Long Life Cycle
Power	165W USB-C AC adapter
Ports	Two Thunderbolt 5, one Thunderbolt 4, HDMI 2.1, headset, SD card slot
Operating System	Windows 11 Pro, Copilot+ PC
Chassis	Aluminum and magnesium, Magnetite
Systems Management	Intel vPro Enterprise
Certifications	ENERGY STAR, EPEAT Gold with Climate+, TCO Certified
Warranty	36 months ProSupport Next Business Day Onsite Service after Remote Diagnosis
Price	$3,293 base / approximately $8,245 as shipped

Build and Design

The Dell Pro Precision 7 16 has a noticeably more substantial design than the 5 Series models, featuring aluminum and magnesium construction with Dell’s dark Magnetite finish. Our configuration remains fairly portable for a 16-inch workstation with RTX PRO 3000 graphics and a 96Wh battery, with Dell listing a starting weight of 4.78 lb. The OLED configuration measures 13.93 x 9.46 inches and ranges from 0.80 to 0.83 inches thick. Next to the Pro Precision 5 16s, the differences are easy to see: the 7 16 drops the numeric keypad in favor of a centered keyboard, a large haptic trackpad, and speaker grilles running along both sides of the deck.

The keyboard uses Dell’s zero-lattice design with mini-LED backlighting, and the centered layout makes good use of the wider 16-inch chassis. Removing the numeric keypad gives the main keyboard and trackpad a more symmetrical position in front of the display, while the large speaker grilles fill the space along either side. Dell uses two 2.5W woofers and two 2.5W tweeters for a total peak output of 10W, a much larger audio configuration than the basic stereo setup in the 5 16s. The keyboard also includes the dedicated Copilot key used across Dell’s current commercial lineup.

Below the keyboard is one of the Pro Precision 7 16’s more distinctive features: a large haptic trackpad that takes up a substantial portion of the palm rest. Instead of using the hinged mechanism found in a conventional trackpad, the click response is generated electronically, allowing the surface to provide a similar click response across a much larger area. Combined with the centered keyboard layout, it gives the 7 16 a noticeably different feel from the Pro Precision 5 systems we have been testing.

Dell equips the Precision 7 16 with an 8MP HDR RGB and IR camera above the display, with User Presence Detection and ExpressSign-In available for automatic Windows locking and sign-in behavior. The camera supports Windows Hello facial recognition and is paired with dual-array microphones, although this camera configuration does not include a physical privacy shutter.

The 16-inch Tandem OLED display is a substantial upgrade over the IPS panels used in the Pro Precision 5 systems, particularly for creators and other users working with high-resolution visual content. Our configuration has a 3840 x 2400 resolution, 120Hz variable refresh rate, 500-nit brightness, 100% DCI-P3 coverage, anti-reflection treatment, and VESA DisplayHDR True Black 1000 certification. The combination of 4K-class resolution and a 16:10 aspect ratio gives applications a large working area, while the 120Hz refresh rate makes scrolling, window movement, and cursor motion noticeably smoother than on a conventional 60Hz workstation panel. OLED also delivers very deep blacks and strong contrast, which is useful when working with HDR media, photography, and other color-sensitive content.

Our OLED configuration also supports touch, which works particularly well on a display this large for quick navigation, selecting items, or moving through visual content. The conventional clamshell hinge limits the system’s usefulness for extended pen-style input compared with a convertible, since the display cannot fold flat against the keyboard. For occasional direct interaction, however, having touch available on a 16-inch workstation panel is a useful addition, especially with the high-resolution OLED display.

For I/O and connectivity, the right side has a full-size SD card slot, one Thunderbolt 4 USB-C port, the 3.5mm headset connection, and a wedge-shaped lock slot. Having two Thunderbolt 5 ports plus a third Thunderbolt 4 connection gives the 7 16 an unusually strong USB-C layout, although Dell leaves out both USB-A and built-in Ethernet. So, users working with older USB peripherals or wired networks will need an adapter or dock, which is an important difference from the Pro Precision 5 16s and its wider selection of legacy ports.

Moving over to the left side, you’ll see that connectivity is heavily centered on Thunderbolt, with HDMI 2.1 alongside two Thunderbolt 5 USB-C ports. Those Thunderbolt 5 connections support Power Delivery and DisplayPort 2.1, with bandwidth reaching up to 120 Gbps for supported devices, giving the 7 16 a lot more external I/O bandwidth for fast storage, docks, and high-resolution displays. The two ports are positioned beside the HDMI connection, keeping most desk-oriented display and docking cables together on the same side.

The underside of the Pro Precision 7 16 features a broad two-row intake grille that feeds the dual-fan cooling system directly above it. The long, narrow rubber feet maintain clearance beneath the chassis for airflow, while the rear edge provides additional space for the cooling system to exhaust heat behind the display. Dell keeps access to the internals relatively simple, with the entire bottom panel secured by just four T5 screws. Once those are removed, the cover can be released from the recesses near the hinges and lifted away.

Here, there is direct access to the 96Wh battery, both SSD positions, and the dual-fan cooling system. Our configuration uses two 1TB Gen5 SSDs in RAID 0, with SSD1 and SSD2 in separate positions on opposite sides of the motherboard. Dell classifies the battery, SSDs, cooling fans, wireless card, and speaker assembly as customer-replaceable components, while hardware such as the heatsink, I/O boards, display assembly, touchpad, and keyboard assembly is intended for technician service. The 64GB of LPDDR5x memory is integrated into the system board, so the memory capacity must be selected when the system is ordered.

The Pro Precision 7 16 uses a much beefier cooling setup than the single-fan design in the 5 16s, which is appropriate given the RTX PRO 3000 and higher power demands. Two large fans fill the rear corners and work with a wide thermal assembly covering the CPU and GPU, with hot air exhausted out the back of the chassis. Both SSDs are positioned outside that central cooling area and have their own covers, so either drive is easy to reach once the bottom panel is off. The large 96Wh battery takes up most of the lower half, but Dell still leaves the storage, cooling system, and other serviceable components easily accessible.

Dell Pro Precision 7 16 Performance

Our review unit runs the Core Ultra 9 386H with NVIDIA RTX PRO 3000 Blackwell graphics, 64GB of LPDDR5x at 8533 MT/s, and two 1TB Gen5 SSDs in RAID 0 on Windows 11 Pro, with benchmarks tested on the Best Performance power mode. For battery life testing, we configure systems into Balanced power mode and set the screen brightness to 50%.

For comparables, we included the Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Core Ultra X9 388H, Arc Pro B390, 64GB), the Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 475, Radeon 890M, 64GB), and the Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (Core Ultra 7 366H, RTX PRO 1000, 64GB) as the external workstation reference.

PCMark 10

PCMark 10 measures general system performance across everyday work such as web browsing, video conferencing, spreadsheets, writing, photo editing, and rendering. The overall score is supported by the Essentials, Productivity, and Digital Content Creation subscores, which indicate where a system’s strengths lie. Higher scores are better.

PCMark 10	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
Overall Score	8,901	9,994	8,627	9,083
Essentials	9,671	12,106	10,744	10,686
Productivity	16,381	15,505	14,574	16,501
Digital Content Creation	12,081	14,433	11,127	11,534

 

PCMark 10 was one of the weaker results for the Pro Precision 7 16, with an overall score of 8,901, trailing both the 5 16s Intel and the ThinkPad P14s Gen 7. Essentials came in at 9,671, the lowest result of the four systems, while Productivity was much closer at 16,381 compared with 16,501 for the ThinkPad. These general productivity workloads do not take full advantage of the RTX PRO 3000, which becomes much more important in the GPU-focused tests later on.

PCMark 10 Modern Office Battery

The PCMark 10 Modern Office battery test repeatedly runs common office tasks until the battery reaches the test’s cutoff point, in Balanced mode at 50% display brightness. This is a rundown of the whole system rather than a synthetic idle drain, so it tracks closely with what a full day of productivity work does to the battery. Longer runtimes are better.

Modern Office Battery	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
Runtime (higher is better)	11 hours 43 minutes	24 hours 43 minutes	15 hours 5 minutes	15 hours 52 minutes

 

This is the bill for the configuration. Eleven hours and 43 minutes is the shortest run of any Pro Precision we have tested, less than half the 24 hours and 43 minutes the 5 16s Intel manages, and that is with a 96Wh pack against the 5 series 70Wh. A discrete GPU, a 4K OLED at 120Hz, and two Gen5 drives all draw power from the same battery. It still clears a working day, but all-day-and-then-some belongs to the 5 series.

Geekbench 6

Geekbench 6 measures processor performance using a mix of common tasks, with separate scores for single-core and multi-core workloads, plus GPU compute scores through OpenCL and Vulkan. Higher scores are better. Our review unit’s CPU run was flagged as invalid by the benchmark’s tamper detection. We reviewed it and treated the flag as a false positive, so the scores are included below.

Geekbench 6	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
CPU Single-Core	2,915	2,969	2,854	2,808
CPU Multi-Core	17,280	17,401	14,169	16,319
GPU OpenCL	131,492	57,998	37,520	87,537
GPU Vulkan	104,344	63,015	53,969	73,204

 

The two Intel Precisions are effectively tied on CPU, with the 5 16s Intel a fraction ahead at 2,969 and 17,401 against 2,915 and 17,280. Everything that separates them is on the GPU side, where the RTX PRO 3000 returns 131,492 in OpenCL, 2.3 times the Arc Pro B390 and 50% clear of the RTX PRO 1000 in the ThinkPad.

Geekbench 7

Geekbench 7 joins the suite alongside Geekbench 6 as comparison data builds. Its CPU scores are calibrated against a baseline of 2,500, set by the AMD Ryzen 7700, while GPU scores are calibrated against a baseline of 100,000, set by the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060. Higher scores are better, and double the score indicates double the performance. Because Geekbench 7 uses new workloads and new baselines, its scores are not comparable to Geekbench 6 results.

Geekbench 7	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
CPU Single-Core	2,652	2,733	2,659	2,533
CPU Multi-Core	18,648	18,965	16,641	17,651
GPU OpenCL	96,919	54,247	31,874	75,340
GPU Vulkan	104,229	47,436	*	70,067
GPU CUDA	174,559	N/A	N/A	114,469

 

Geekbench 7 repeats the pattern. The 386H trails its own 5 16s sibling slightly on both CPU metrics, then leads every GPU metric, topping out at 174,559 in CUDA against 114,469 for the RTX PRO 1000. Neither integrated system can run CUDA at all, which is the practical argument for the card.

Cinebench 2026

Cinebench 2026 is the current release in the Cinebench line and the only version we report. It tests CPU and GPU performance using Maxon’s Redshift render engine. It is built on the latest Cinema 4D 2026 code and is designed to show whether a machine is stable under high CPU load, whether a notebook’s cooling can sustain longer render tasks, and how it handles demanding real-world 3D work. Because code and compiler changes accelerated scene rendering, Cinebench 2026 scores use an adjusted range and should not be compared to scores from previous Cinebench versions. Its GPU test supports current NVIDIA and AMD hardware but does not yet run on Intel integrated graphics, and our review unit’s CPU results were confirmed by a repeat run.

Cinebench 2026	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
CPU Single Thread	518	535	471	502
CPU Multiple Threads	3,873	4,618	4,767	4,492
GPU	51,517	N/A	5,667	34,437

 

The GPU result is the headline here: 51,517 for the Radeon 890M versus 5,667, with the Arc Pro B390 unable to run the test. The CPU side is less flattering. Single thread at 518 sits mid-pack, and the multi-thread 3,873 is the lowest of the four, 16% behind the 5 16s Intel on a comparable 16-core, 16-thread part. We repeated the run and reproduced the same figure.

7-Zip Compression

The built-in 7-Zip benchmark measures how quickly the processor can compress and decompress data using multiple threads, run with a 128MB dictionary across ten passes. Decompression tends to scale with thread count while compression leans on memory latency, so the two halves often tell different stories. Higher GIPS scores are better.

7-Zip 24.09 (GIPS)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
Compressing	96.202	96.281	85.627	90.364
Decompressing	95.896	97.246	117.863	90.526
Total Rating	96.049	96.764	101.745	90.445

 

Compression was essentially tied between the two Intel Precisions, with the 7 16 scoring 96.202 GIPS compared with 96.281 GIPS from the 5 16s Intel. Decompression favors the 24-thread AMD system, which reached 117.863 GIPS and finished with the highest total rating at 101.745. The 7 16 placed second overall at 96.049, ahead of the ThinkPad but behind both the 5 16s Intel and AMD systems in total performance.

y-cruncher

y-cruncher measures how quickly the processor can calculate large numbers of digits of Pi, placing a heavy load on the CPU and memory subsystem. At the same time, the BBP runs to extract hexadecimal digits of Pi. Results are in seconds, so lower times are better. The AMD unit could not complete the 5-billion- and 10-billion-digit runs because its memory reservation for the integrated GPU reduces the available pool below the amount required for those sizes.

y-cruncher (seconds, lower is better)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
Pi 1B	31.557	26.422	22.840	26.685
Pi 2.5B	101.524	80.463	64.242	76.787
Pi 5B	226.255	183.822	N/A	172.994
Pi 10B	500.875	407.658	N/A	392.083
Pi BBP 1B	1.639	1.635	1.100	1.621
Pi BBP 10B	21.512	19.036	12.277	18.200
Pi BBP 100B	291.628	234.797	140.284	219.969

 

y-cruncher is the clearest CPU loss in the review. The 7 16 is the slowest of the four on every computation, taking 500.875 seconds at Pi 10B, compared with 392.083 for the ThinkPad and 407.658 for the 5 16s Intel, and the BBP runs repeat it exactly. There is no GPU component here, so the discrete card contributes nothing, and the sustained-clock behavior is left exposed.

Blender

The Blender benchmark measures rendering performance using three different 3D scenes: Monster, Junkshop, and Classroom. Results are reported in samples per minute, so higher scores are better. We test on both the CPU and GPU. Scores are not comparable across Blender versions, so we have trimmed the older releases from the suite and report the current Blender 5.2 results here. The GPU figures represent each system’s fastest renderer: the discrete card on the two NVIDIA systems and the integrated GPU on the 5 16s pair.

Blender 5.2 (samples/min)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
GPU
Monster	1,555.53	572.84	123.00	922.95
Junkshop	1,257.01	468.85	101.21	795.65
Classroom	1,000.62	420.48	82.84	625.62
CPU
Monster	137.49	138.88	130.86	131.08
Junkshop	101.34	94.97	99.74	97.76
Classroom	69.26	65.39	74.18	68.45

 

This is what the card is for. The RTX PRO 3000 renders Monster at 1,555.53 samples per minute, 2.7 times the Arc Pro B390 and 69% ahead of the RTX PRO 1000, and the margin holds across Junkshop and Classroom. CPU rendering is a different picture, with all four within a few percent of each other; the 7 16 takes Junkshop at 101.34 and loses to the 24-thread AMD part in Classroom.

LuxMark

LuxMark measures GPU compute performance by rendering complex scenes through OpenCL, based on LuxCoreRender. We run the Food and Hall scenes on all available OpenCL devices in each system, so single-GPU systems are scored on that GPU while the dual-GPU systems render on the discrete and integrated GPUs together, as noted in the column headers. Higher scores are better.

LuxMark v4	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000 + iGPU)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000 + iGPU)
Hall	19,300	3,505	2,058	11,342
Food	7,624	1,713	1,034	4,103

 

LuxMark scales the same way. Hall at 19,300 is 5.5 times the Arc Pro B390 and 70% ahead of the ThinkPad, and Food widens that to 4.5 times and 86%. These are the margins that justify the chassis for anyone running OpenCL renderers.

V-Ray

Chaos V-Ray measures ray-traced rendering throughput, reported in vpaths, where higher is better. We run the CUDA-compatible engine on every system so results remain comparable to notebooks with only integrated graphics; on systems without a discrete GPU, that path executes on the integrated graphics, even though V-Ray reports the processor name in its device field. On dedicated NVIDIA hardware, we also capture V-Ray’s RTX engine, which engages the card’s ray tracing cores and is reported separately.

V-Ray GPU (vpaths)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
CUDA Engine	2,469	946	1,039	1,568
RTX Engine	3,891	N/A	N/A	2,589

 

V-Ray shows a significant advantage for the two systems with dedicated NVIDIA graphics, especially when the RTX engine is used. The Pro Precision 7 16 reached 3,891 vpaths in the RTX test, compared with 2,589 for the RTX PRO 1000, while its CUDA result of 2,469 was 57% higher than that of the ThinkPad. The integrated systems can use only the CUDA path here, with both finishing at less than half of the 7 16’s score.

3DMark CPU Profile

The 3DMark CPU Profile benchmark measures CPU performance at fixed thread counts, from a single thread up to the maximum available, showing how performance scales as more cores are engaged. Higher scores are better.

3DMark CPU Profile	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
Max Threads	10,557	10,748	9,267	10,500
8 Threads	5,996	6,818	6,573	6,550
4 Threads	4,261	4,483	4,238	4,219
1 Thread	1,185	1,210	1,178	1,165

 

The three Intel systems finish within about 2% of each other at max threads, with the 7 16 second at 10,557. The eight-thread result is the outlier, with 5,996 the lowest in the group by a clear margin, even behind the ThinkPad. Single-thread is a four-way tie inside 4%.

3DMark Storage and Blackmagic Disk Speed Test

3DMark Storage measures how an SSD performs during gaming-related tasks such as loading games, installing software, saving progress, and moving game files. Blackmagic Disk Speed Test measures an SSD’s sequential read and write speeds using large media files. Higher is better in both.

Storage	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
3DMark Storage	2,189	2,804	2,325	3,094
Blackmagic Write (MB/s)	7,387.8	7,660.2	5,070.5	8,262.3
Blackmagic Read (MB/s)	6,776.2	8,418.1	5,071.2	8,511.5

 

On paper, the RAID 0 array does not deliver what the configuration implies. 3DMark Storage returns 2,189, the lowest of the four comparison systems and well behind the ThinkPad’s single drive at 3,094, and SPECworkstation independently puts Storage at 1.30, second lowest. The sequential numbers are healthier in absolute terms, with Blackmagic writes of 7,387.8 MB/s and reads of 6,776.2 MB/s, though both still trail the single-drive 5 16s Intel and ThinkPad. Those results are consistent with how striping behaves rather than a sign of a faulty array. Lightly threaded storage tests split a single queue across two drives, which adds overhead without adding parallelism, and RAID 0’s benefits only appear as demand climbs. We verified that the array is configured and performing as intended.

As always, we tested the system as it shipped, and this one shipped in RAID 0, which is a somewhat unusual factory choice. Buyers are not locked into it. The two Gen5 drives can be split into separate OS and data volumes, mirrored in RAID 1 for redundancy, or simply run as independent drives, and several of those layouts may net better storage performance in scenarios like the ones tested here. The catch is that moving away from the factory RAID 0 means reinstalling the operating system, so the storage layout is worth deciding at deployment time rather than after the machine is in service.

Blackmagic RAW Speed Test

The Blackmagic RAW Speed Test measures how many frames per second a system can decode Blackmagic RAW video on the CPU and on the GPU. We quote the 8K results at 12:1 compression, and higher is better.

Blackmagic RAW Speed Test	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
8K 12:1 CPU (fps)	77	77	74	77
8K 12:1 GPU (fps)	137	87	49	96

 

CPU decode is identical across the three Intel systems at 77fps. The GPU path is where the card shows up, reaching 137fps, 57% ahead of the Arc Pro B390 and 43% ahead of the RTX PRO 1000.

Topaz Video AI

The Topaz Video AI benchmark measures AI video upscaling and frame-interpolation performance in frames per second across the application’s enhancement models, run here at 1080p input, where higher is better. The 16X Slowmo Aion model failed to complete on our review unit and on the 5 16s Intel, while the 5 16s AMD ran it without issue.

Topaz Video AI (fps)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
Artemis 1X / 2X / 4X	12.38 / 8.94 / 3.15	6.24 / 5.21 / 1.90	3.72 / 2.21 / 0.78	5.17 / 3.19 / 1.12
Iris 1X / 2X / 4X	13.06 / 7.49 / 2.32	5.29 / 3.19 / 0.96	4.91 / 2.72 / 0.92	5.91 / 3.12 / 1.01
Proteus 1X / 2X / 4X	12.06 / 8.60 / 2.66	6.45 / 6.09 / 2.47	3.99 / 2.70 / 1.18	4.78 / 3.14 / 1.05
Gaia 1X / 2X / 4X	3.73 / 2.66 / 2.02	3.30 / 2.26 / 1.51	1.87 / 1.34 / 0.96	1.62 / 1.13 / 0.79
Nyx 1X / 2X	3.59 / 3.08	1.56 / 1.57	1.87 / 1.53	2.40 / 2.09
Hyperion HDR 1X	15.58	3.23	11.48	14.56
4X Slowmo Apollo / APFast	18.04 / 30.60	8.48 / 22.00	6.08 / 17.59	10.39 / 29.94
16X Slowmo Aion	DNF	DNF	9.05	N/A

 

The 7 16 leads every model it completed, roughly doubling the 5 16s Intel on Artemis and Iris and better than doubling the ThinkPad. The one gap in the row is the 16X Slowmo Aion model, which did not finish (the same failure we recorded on the 5 16s Intel).

UL Procyon AI Text Generation

The Procyon AI Text Generation Benchmark streamlines LLM performance testing by providing a concise, consistent evaluation method. It enables repeated testing across four local models (Phi, Mistral, Llama3, and Llama2) while minimizing the complexity of large models and the number of variables. Developed with AI hardware leaders, it optimizes the use of local AI accelerators to deliver more reliable, efficient performance assessments. All four systems ran the models through ONNX Runtime with DirectML on their GPUs.

Procyon AI Text Generation	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
Phi	2,244	893	434	1,618
Mistral	2,062	646	403	1,397
Llama3	1,859	669	357	1,252
Llama2	1,990	750	390	DNF

 

Local LLM inference is the widest AI margin in the review. The 7 16 leads every model, 2,244 on Phi against 893 for the Arc Pro B390, and it still holds a 39% lead over the ThinkPad on the same test. The ThinkPad did not complete Llama2.

UL Procyon AI Computer Vision

The Procyon AI Computer Vision Benchmark measures AI inference performance across CPUs, GPUs, and dedicated accelerators using a range of neural networks, evaluating tasks such as image classification, object detection, segmentation, and super-resolution with models including MobileNet V3, Inception V4, YOLO V3, DeepLab V3, Real ESRGAN, and ResNet 50. The WinML runs use float32 on CPU and GPU, giving a like-for-like view across vendors. We also run the newer Computer Vision 2 suite through each vendor’s native path: OpenVINO in int8 on the Intel NPUs and fp16 on their iGPUs, TensorRT in fp16 on the RTX PRO 3000, and Ryzen AI on the AMD NPU; those results are listed separately since precision and runtime differ by platform. Higher scores are better.

Procyon AI Computer Vision (WinML)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
CPU	122	143	114	134
GPU	553	410	245	426

 

Procyon AI Computer Vision 2 (native runtimes)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD
NPU (int8)	1,614	1,630	1,189
iGPU (fp16)	837	1,529	N/A
dGPU (TensorRT fp16)	3,470	N/A	N/A

 

The WinML float32 path puts the 7 16 last on CPU at 122 and first on GPU at 553, 35% ahead of the Arc Pro B390 and 30% ahead of the ThinkPad. Running each vendor native runtime instead, the discrete card more than doubles anything the integrated silicon manages at 3,470 through TensorRT. The NPU result of 1,614 is a virtual tie with the 5 16s Intel, which is expected since both use the same 50 TOPS engine, and the 837 on integrated graphics reflects the smaller iGPU in the 386H rather than the Arc Pro B390.

UL Procyon AI Image Generation

The Procyon AI Image Generation Benchmark provides a consistent method for measuring AI inference performance from low-power NPUs to high-end GPUs, with three tests: Stable Diffusion XL FP16 for high-end GPUs, Stable Diffusion 1.5 FP16 for moderately powerful GPUs, and Stable Diffusion 1.5 INT8 for low-power devices. The benchmark uses the optimal inference path for each platform: OpenVINO on Intel systems, the AMD-optimized DirectML pipeline on Radeon GPUs, and TensorRT on NVIDIA GPUs. The INT8 test uses Intel’s quantized SD 1.5 model where supported; the AMD pipeline does not offer a comparable quantized run. Our review unit runs this suite through TensorRT on the RTX PRO 3000. New with this round, we also ran the INT8 workload on the Intel NPU.

Procyon AI Image Generation	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
SD 1.5 FP16	1,424	638	316	943
SD 1.5 INT8	17,287	7,778	2,855	12,403
SDXL FP16	1,273	738	200	765
SD 1.5 INT8 NPU	2,870	2,881	N/A	N/A

 

TensorRT leads every row. The INT8 workload returns 17,287 against 12,403 for the ThinkPad and 7,778 for the Arc Pro B390, and SDXL comes in at 1,273, where the two integrated systems sit at 738 and 200. The NPU score of 2,870 is effectively identical to the 5 16s Intel score of 2,881, again, the same Intel accelerator doing the same work.

SPECviewperf 15

SPECviewperf 15 measures graphics performance using viewsets derived from professional applications in CAD, 3D modeling, rendering, engineering, and medical visualization. Our review unit ran the suite at its native 4K and produced scores in all 11 viewsets. The comparison systems ran at 1080p, which is not comparable to a 4K run, so this table includes only the review unit.

SPECviewperf 15 (4K)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)
3dsmax-08	32.38
blender-01	30.20
catia-07	42.71
creo-04	114.70
energy-04	26.28
enscape-01	11.65
maya-07	71.18
medical-04	50.48
snx-05	82.27
solidworks-08	63.99
unreal_engine-01	50.42

 

Run at the panel native 4K, the 7 16 completed all 11 viewsets. creo-04 at 114.70 and snx-05 at 82.27 are the strongest results, and enscape-01 at 11.65 is the weakest. Because the comparison systems ran these viewsets at 1080p, these figures should not be read against the other tables in this review.

SPECworkstation 4

SPECworkstation 4 measures workstation performance across CPU, graphics, storage, AI, product design, engineering, financial services, and other professional workloads, using real applications grouped into seven industry verticals. Higher scores are better, and N/A means the system did not complete every workload required for that category. The standalone 7-Zip workload inside SPECworkstation failed on our review unit and on the 5 16s AMD, which suppresses the CPU subsystem and Productivity and Development scores for both; reruns reproduced the same failure on each, and our separate 7-Zip section above covers that ground.

SPECworkstation 4	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
Hardware Subsystems
Graphics	6.54	2.67	2.65	4.51
Accelerator	3.88	2.25	2.31	3.26
Storage	1.30	1.80	1.00	1.67
CPU	N/A	1.34	N/A	1.35
Industry Verticals
AI & Machine Learning	1.76	1.47	1.45	1.65
Energy	1.87	1.55	1.38	1.69
Financial Services	1.03	0.94	1.29	0.96
Life Sciences	2.03	1.84	1.47	1.82
Media & Entertainment	1.87	1.60	1.48	1.81
Product Design	1.87	1.75	1.41	1.89
Productivity & Development	N/A	1.35	N/A	1.34

 

The Graphics subsystem score of 6.54 is 2.4 times that of the integrated system and 45% higher than the ThinkPad, while the 7 16 leads four of the six industry verticals it completed. Product Design goes to the ThinkPad by a narrow 1.89 to 1.87 margin, while the AMD system leads Financial Services. The CPU and Productivity and Development scores are N/A because the standalone 7-Zip workload failed, the same failure recorded on the 5 16s AMD. Storage finished at 1.30, the second-lowest result of the group, which also follows the relatively weak storage performance recorded in 3DMark Storage.

Conclusion

The Dell Pro Precision 7 16 is built around a very different set of priorities than the Pro Precision 5 16s Intel, and the RTX PRO 3000 is the reason to spend the extra money. GPU rendering was where the gap became especially large, with the 7 16 producing 1,555.53 samples per minute in Blender Monster compared with 572.84 from the Arc Pro B390, with similarly large gains in Junkshop and Classroom. V-Ray, local AI text generation, Topaz Video AI, and Blackmagic RAW also benefited heavily from the discrete GPU, including 137 fps in the BRAW GPU test compared with 87 fps from the 5 16s Intel. CPU performance does not provide the same advantage; however, the less expensive 5 16s Intel was as fast or faster in several processor-heavy tests, including Geekbench, Cinebench, and y-cruncher.

The additional hardware also comes with a substantial battery penalty, even with the 7 16 carrying a much larger 96Wh brick. Its 11 hours and 43 minutes in the Modern Office test is less than half the 24 hours and 43 minutes delivered by the 5 16s Intel, which is a major difference for anyone regularly working away from a desk. There are some excellent upgrades beyond the RTX PRO 3000, including the 3840 x 2400 Tandem OLED with 120Hz VRR, the large haptic trackpad, two Thunderbolt 5 ports, a full-size SD card reader, and room for two Gen5 SSDs. Dell also keeps the battery, SSDs, and cooling fans accessible once the bottom cover is removed, although the 64GB of LPDDR5x memory is soldered and cannot be upgraded later. Our RAID 0 configuration was also light in storage testing, as the two Gen5 drives did not outperform the single-drive systems, contrary to what their configuration would suggest.

Pricing ultimately makes the choice between these two systems fairly easy. Our exact dual-drive configuration works out to approximately $8,245 based on the hardware Dell shipped, putting the 7 16 roughly $1,900 to $2,300 above the 5 16s Intel, depending on how the configurations are compared. Engineers, 3D artists, visualization professionals, video editors, and users running GPU-accelerated local AI workloads can see enormous performance gains from the RTX PRO 3000, and those workloads give the added cost a valuable purpose. Users spending most of their time in CPU-heavy applications, development work, office workloads, or anything that does not benefit substantially from NVIDIA graphics should look closely at the 5 16s Intel instead. It offers similar or better CPU performance, more than twice the battery life, and a considerably lower price, while the Pro Precision 7 16 earns its premium specifically for users who can put its much faster GPU to work.

For configuration options and current pricing, visit the Dell Pro Precision 7 Series 16 product page.

Leaderboard: The Dell Pro Precision 7 16 Intel ranks #19 on our Laptop Battery Life Leaderboard and appears in the field on our Best Mobile Workstations and Best Laptops for Local AI pages.

The post Dell Pro Precision 7 16 Intel Review: RTX PRO 3000 Blackwell in a Tandem OLED Workstation appeared first on StorageReview.com.

The Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel is a 16-inch mobile workstation built for users who want more screen space while keeping the system reasonably portable. Our review unit pairs the Core Ultra X9 388H with Intel Arc Pro B390 graphics, 64GB of LPCAMM2-8533 memory, and a 1TB Gen5 SED SSD. The 2560 x 1600 IPS display gives plenty of room for larger spreadsheets, development tools, and creative applications, while the added numeric keypad makes better use of the wider chassis. It also manages to pack all of this in while delivering excellent battery life.

The 16s is built for engineers, developers, analysts, creators, and other professionals who need workstation-level performance in a system that is still fairly easy to carry around. Intel vPro Enterprise, Wi-Fi 7, a fingerprint reader, smart card support, TPM 2.0, and Dell’s management tools also make it a good fit for managed business environments. Our 64GB LPCAMM2 configuration has plenty of memory for heavier multitasking, professional applications, and local AI workloads. Dell also offers the same chassis with an AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 475, so potential buyers have another platform option with a very similar overall design.

The Arc Pro B390 gives the 16s considerably more graphics capability than most business laptops with integrated graphics, along with 12 Xe cores and certified drivers for professional applications. The Core Ultra X9 388H also includes a 50 TOPS NPU, giving the system dedicated hardware for supported local AI workloads without relying entirely on the CPU or GPU. The larger 16-inch chassis gives the cooling system more room to work as well, and, as you will see in our testing below, the 16s posted the strongest multicore results we have seen from a B390-based system.

Our review configuration is priced at $5,929.25 as a single-unit purchase on Dell.com, with the jump from 16GB to 64GB of LPCAMM2 memory accounting for $1,600 of that total. Commercial pricing can vary considerably depending on configuration, support agreements, volume, and account-level discounts, so the listed web price is better treated as a reference point than a typical fleet purchase price. The system is available now through the Dell Pro Precision 5 Series 16S product page.

Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Specifications

Specification	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s (PW516260)
Processor	Intel Core Ultra X9 388H vPro (Series 3, 16 cores/16 threads, up to 5.1GHz, 50 TOPS NPU)
Graphics	Intel Arc Pro B390 (12 Xe cores, integrated)
Memory	64GB LPCAMM2, 8533 MT/s, dual-channel
Storage	1TB SED PCIe NVMe 2280 SSD, Gen5 x4
Display	16-inch QHD+/WQXGA (2560 x 1600), non-touch, 500 nits, IPS, 100% sRGB, anti-glare, low blue light
Camera	8MP HDR RGB + IR with User Presence Detection
Wireless	Intel Wi-Fi 7 BE211, 2×2
Keyboard	English US backlit with numeric keypad and Copilot key
Security	Fingerprint reader, smart card reader, ControlVault 3+, TPM 2.0
Battery	3-cell, 70Wh Long Lifecycle, ExpressCharge and ExpressCharge Boost
Power	100W USB-C adapter
Operating System	Windows 11 Pro (Copilot+ PC)
Chassis	Aluminum top cover, palm rest, and bottom cover
Systems Management	Intel vPro Enabled
Certifications	ENERGY STAR, EPEAT Gold with Climate+, TCO Certified
Warranty	36 months Basic Onsite Service after Remote Diagnosis
Price	$5,929.25 as tested (Dell.com single-unit)

Build and Design

The Dell Pro Precision 5 16s uses aluminum across the top cover, palm rest, and bottom cover, giving the 16-inch chassis a solid feel while keeping the design fairly slim for a mobile workstation. It measures 14.12 x 9.98 inches, reaches 0.79 inches at its thickest point, and starts at 4.20 lb. Compared with the 14-inch Pro Precision 5 14s, which starts at 3.12 lb, the added size and roughly 1.1 lb of extra weight are easy to notice in a bag, but the larger chassis gives users considerably more screen and keyboard space. The AMD version of the 16s uses the same chassis, so the exterior design, dimensions, keyboard, port layout, and service access are essentially identical between the two platforms.

The 16-inch display is a 2560 x 1600 IPS panel with a 16:10 aspect ratio, 500-nit brightness, 100% sRGB coverage, an anti-glare finish, and low-blue-light support. That combination works nicely for a workstation this size, especially when working with larger spreadsheets, development environments, timelines, or applications with several tool panels open at once. The extra vertical room from the 16:10 panel is particularly useful beside a conventional 16:9 display, and the 500-nit rating gives the screen enough brightness for offices with stronger overhead lighting. Our configuration is non-touch.

Dell uses a wide hinge across the rear of the chassis, with most of the mechanism tucked behind the display rather than occupying space along the keyboard deck. The lid itself is fairly thin, which helps keep the 16s from looking bulky when viewed from the side, and the aluminum construction gives the display assembly more rigidity than a typical plastic business notebook. Compared with the 14s, the overall design is very similar, but the wider base gives the keyboard, touchpad, and display more room without dramatically increasing chassis thickness.

For audio, it has two internal 2W speakers for 4W of total output, with the speaker modules visible at the lower corners when the bottom cover is removed. Their placement keeps speaker grilles away from the keyboard deck and directs audio through openings along the lower chassis. The setup is primarily geared toward conferencing, calls, and everyday media use, with keyboard controls available for quick volume adjustment. Dell also pairs the speakers with dual digital-array microphones for conferencing.

The larger keyboard deck is put to good use with a full numeric keypad, which is a useful addition for spreadsheet work, financial applications, engineering software, and other number-heavy workloads. Our unit has a backlit keyboard with a dedicated Copilot key, while the power button at the upper-right corner also houses the fingerprint reader. Dell shifts the large clickpad slightly toward the left so it lines up more closely with the main typing area instead of centering it across the entire width of the notebook. There is still plenty of palm-rest space around it, even with the wider keyboard and number pad.

Port selection is the strongest practical argument for working from this machine without a dock. Dell fits nine ports and slots across the two sides, which is a lot for a chassis that measures 0.79 inches at its thickest point, and almost none of it is legacy that has been quietly dropped on competitive systems. The left side carries HDMI 2.1, one USB-A port, two Thunderbolt 4 USB-C ports with DisplayPort and Power Delivery, and the smart card reader.

The right side adds the 3.5mm headset jack, a second USB-A port, Gigabit Ethernet on a drop-jaw hinge that lets a full-size RJ45 fit a chassis this thin, and a wedge lock slot. The small blank ahead of the headset jack is an eSIM cover rather than a card slot.

The effect is a full desk setup that needs nothing extra. Displays can hang off HDMI 2.1 or either Thunderbolt port; wired networking does not need a dongle or a USB adapter; and the two USB-A ports are split, one per side, for the peripherals that never moved to USB-C. The smart card reader is one that most competitors have given up, and it remains a requirement in government, healthcare, and finance deployments where CAC or PIV login is mandatory. The only layout quibble is that both USB-C ports sit on the left, so charging is left-side-only.

Above the display, Dell includes an 8MP HDR RGB and IR camera with dual-array microphones, user presence detection, and a physical privacy shutter. The 8MP sensor provides considerably more image resolution than the basic 1080p webcams still common in business notebooks, which can help retain facial detail during calls and conferencing. IR support provides Windows Hello facial authentication, while presence detection can work with supported Windows features to wake or lock the notebook as the user approaches or leaves. The physical shutter is built directly into the camera housing and can be closed with a small slider above the display. Dell lists several camera configurations for the 16s, with the 8MP HDR RGB+IR setup used in our review unit sitting at the top of that range.

In addition to the fingerprint reader and IR camera, security hardware with our configuration also includes a smart card reader, TPM 2.0, and Dell ControlVault 3+. There is no NFC reader on this configuration, which is one difference from the 14s unit we tested. Intel vPro Enterprise adds another layer for organizations using remote administration and hardware-assisted security features, which gives IT departments several authentication and management options without requiring external hardware.

Opening the bottom cover shows several major components accessible instead of fixing everything permanently to the motherboard. The 70Wh long-lifecycle battery in our configuration stretches across much of the lower half of the chassis and is customer-replaceable, while the LPCAMM2 memory module, M.2 SSD, WLAN card, fan, and several other components can also be replaced. Below, you can also see a single large cooling fan and heat pipe covering the processor area, with the LPCAMM2 module and storage positioned nearby for direct access once the cover is removed. Dell officially classifies the battery, memory, SSD, WLAN card, fan, speakers, and fingerprint reader as customer-replaceable components, which gives IT departments a lot more flexibility when it comes to repairs and upgrades over the life of the notebook.

Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Performance

Our review unit runs the Core Ultra X9 388H with Arc Pro B390 graphics, 64GB of LPCAMM2 at 8533 MT/s, and a 1TB Gen5 SED SSD on Windows 11 Pro, with benchmarks tested on the Best Performance power mode. For battery life testing, we configure systems into Balanced power mode and set the screen brightness to 50%.

For comparables, we included the AMD version of the same machine, the Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 475, Radeon 890M, 64GB), the step-up Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA RTX PRO 3000 Blackwell 12GB, 64GB, dual-drive RAID 0), and the Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (Core Ultra 7 366H, RTX PRO 1000, 64GB) as the external workstation reference. A few comp cells are marked N/A where a system could not complete a workload. The 7 16 Geekbench 6 run carried an invalid flag from tamper detection, which we reviewed and treated as a false positive, and its Cinebench CPU results were confirmed by a repeat run. We also tested the Dell Pro Precision 5 14s Intel, which shares this unit’s CPU and GPU; its results land within a few percent across the suite, so we left it off the tables and call out the places where the chassis difference shows up.

PCMark 10

PCMark 10 measures general system performance across everyday work such as web browsing, video conferencing, spreadsheets, writing, photo editing, and rendering. The overall score is supported by Essentials, Productivity, and Digital Content Creation subscores that show where a system’s strengths sit. Higher scores are better.

PCMark 10	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
Overall Score	9,994	8,627	8,901	9,083
Essentials	12,106	10,744	9,671	10,686
Productivity	15,505	14,574	16,381	16,501
Digital Content Creation	14,433	11,127	12,081	11,534

 

At 9,994 overall, the 5 16s Intel leads this group by a comfortable margin, 12% over the far more expensive 7 16 and 16% over its AMD twin, though it stops just six points short of the 10,000 mark its 14-inch sibling crossed. Its Digital Content Creation score of 14,433 is the best of the four, while the 7 16 and ThinkPad claw back ground in the Productivity subscore.

PCMark 10 Modern Office Battery

The PCMark 10 Modern Office battery test repeatedly runs common office tasks until the battery reaches the test’s cutoff point, in Balanced mode at 50% display brightness. This is a rundown of the whole system rather than a synthetic idle drain, so it tracks closely with what a full day of productivity work does to the battery. Longer runtimes are better.

Modern Office Battery	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
Runtime (higher is better)	24 hours 43 minutes	15 hours 5 minutes	11 hours 43 minutes	15 hours 52 minutes

 

This is the longest battery run of the entire Pro Precision fleet. At 24 hours and 43 minutes, the 5 16s Intel more than doubles the dGPU-equipped 7 16, adds nine hours and 38 minutes over the AMD version of the same chassis, runs nearly nine hours past the ThinkPad, and even outlasts its own 14-inch twin by 53 minutes despite the larger, higher-resolution panel, a credit to the same 70Wh pack paired with the 16-inch chassis thermals. For all-day-and-then-some field work, this is the unit in the family to pick.

Geekbench 6

Geekbench 6 measures processor performance using a mix of common tasks, with separate scores for single-core and multi-core workloads, plus GPU compute scores through OpenCL and Vulkan. Higher scores are better. The 7 16 CPU run was flagged as invalid by the benchmark’s tamper detection; we reviewed it and treated the flag as a false positive, so its scores are included below.

Geekbench 6	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
CPU Single-Core	2,969	2,854	2,915	2,808
CPU Multi-Core	17,401	14,169	17,280	16,319
GPU OpenCL	57,998	37,520	131,492	87,537
GPU Vulkan	63,015	53,969	104,344	73,204

 

The X9 388H leads the CPU runs on both metrics, edging the Core Ultra 9 386H in the 7 16 by 2% single-core and under 1% multi-core, and the Arc Pro B390’s 63,015 Vulkan score is the best we have recorded from this iGPU, edging past even its own OpenCL result. The RTX PRO 3000 resets the scale on GPU compute, more than doubling the review unit in OpenCL.

Geekbench 7

Geekbench 7 joins the suite alongside Geekbench 6 as comparison data builds. Its CPU scores are calibrated against a baseline of 2,500, set by the AMD Ryzen 7700, while GPU scores are calibrated against a baseline of 100,000, set by the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060. Higher scores are better, and double the score indicates double the performance. Because Geekbench 7 uses new workloads and new baselines, its scores are not comparable to Geekbench 6 results.

Geekbench 7	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
CPU Single-Core	2,733	2,659	2,652	2,533
CPU Multi-Core	18,965	16,641	18,648	17,651
GPU OpenCL	54,247	31,874	96,919	75,340
GPU Vulkan	47,436	*	104,229	70,067
GPU CUDA	N/A	N/A	174,559	114,469

 

*The AMD unit’s Vulkan run failed workload validation in Geekbench 7 and was assigned a zero score for the affected subtest; we have discarded the result and will update the table when a clean run is available. Separately, on the dual-GPU 7 16, Geekbench’s Vulkan device selector runs the workload on the opposite GPU from the one selected; the scores above are attributed to the device that did the work.

Here is the quiet upset of the review: at 18,965 multi-core, the 5 16s Intel beats every system in the group, including the Core Ultra 9-equipped 7 16, and its 2,733 single-core leads as well. On the GPU side, the Arc Pro B390’s OpenCL score lands at just over half of Geekbench 7’s RTX 4060 baseline, while the RTX PRO 3000 clears the baseline in Vulkan and beats it by three-quarters in CUDA.

Cinebench 2026

Cinebench 2026 is the current release in the Cinebench line and the only version we report. It tests CPU and GPU performance using Maxon’s Redshift render engine. It is built on the latest Cinema 4D 2026 code and is designed to show whether a machine is stable under high CPU load, whether a notebook’s cooling can sustain longer render tasks, and how it handles demanding real-world 3D work. Because code and compiler changes accelerated scene rendering, Cinebench 2026 scores use an adjusted range and should not be compared to scores from previous Cinebench versions. Its GPU test supports current NVIDIA and AMD hardware but does not yet run on Intel integrated graphics, and the 7 16’s CPU results were confirmed by a repeat run.

Cinebench 2026	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
CPU Single Thread	535	471	518	502
CPU Multiple Threads	4,618	4,767	3,873	4,492
GPU	N/A	5,667	51,517	34,437

 

The review unit takes a single thread at 535, the best Cinebench 2026 single-thread result we have recorded from a laptop, while the AMD twin’s 24 threads edge it in the multi-thread test by 3%. On GPU, the RTX PRO 3000’s 51,517 is the number that justifies the 7 16’s existence for supported renderers, half as quick as the RTX PRO 1000 in the ThinkPad.

7-Zip Compression

The built-in 7-Zip benchmark measures how quickly the processor can compress and decompress data using multiple threads, run with a 128MB dictionary across ten passes. Decompression tends to scale with thread count while compression leans on memory latency, so the two halves often tell different stories. Higher GIPS scores are better.

7-Zip 24.09 (GIPS)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
Compressing	96.281	85.627	96.202	90.364
Decompressing	97.246	117.863	95.896	90.526
Total Rating	96.764	101.745	96.049	90.445

 

The AMD unit’s 24-thread decompression hands it the total rating. Still, the review unit wins compression outright, and its 96.764 total edges the 7 16 while beating its own 14-inch twin by 4%, one of the clearest examples of what the bigger chassis buys from identical silicon.

y-cruncher

y-cruncher measures how quickly the processor can calculate large numbers of digits of Pi, placing a heavy load on the CPU and memory subsystem. At the same time, the BBP runs to extract hexadecimal digits of Pi. Results are in seconds, so lower times are better. The AMD unit could not complete the 5-billion- and 10-billion-digit runs because its memory reservation for the integrated GPU reduces the available pool below what those sizes require.

y-cruncher (seconds, lower is better)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
Pi 1B	26.422	22.840	31.557	26.685
Pi 2.5B	80.463	64.242	101.524	76.787
Pi 5B	183.822	N/A	226.255	172.994
Pi 10B	407.658	N/A	500.875	392.083
Pi BBP 1B	1.635	1.100	1.639	1.621
Pi BBP 10B	19.036	12.277	21.512	18.200
Pi BBP 100B	234.797	140.284	291.628	219.969

 

The AMD unit’s SMT threads dominate every run it completed, and the ThinkPad stays slightly ahead of the review unit at the largest Pi sizes. The surprise is the 7 16 trailing the whole group at every size, 23% behind the review unit at 10 billion digits, a result consistent with its lower memory throughput in the SPEC runs and worth revisiting alongside its Cinebench reruns.

Blender

The Blender benchmark measures rendering performance using three different 3D scenes: Monster, Junkshop, and Classroom. Results are reported in samples per minute, so higher scores are better, and we test on both the CPU and GPU. Scores are not comparable across Blender versions, so we have trimmed the older releases from the suite and report the current Blender 5.2 results here. The GPU figures are each system’s fastest renderer, meaning the discrete card on the two NVIDIA systems and the integrated GPU on the 5 16s pair.

Blender 5.2 (samples/min)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
GPU
Monster	572.84	123.00	1,555.53	922.95
Junkshop	468.85	101.21	1,257.01	795.65
Classroom	420.48	82.84	1,000.62	625.62
CPU
Monster	138.88	130.86	137.49	131.08
Junkshop	94.97	99.74	101.34	97.76
Classroom	65.39	74.18	69.26	68.45

 

The RTX PRO 3000 renders Monster at 1,555.53 samples per minute, 69 percent ahead of the RTX PRO 1000 in the ThinkPad and nearly triple the Arc Pro B390, which is what the 7 16’s dGPU premium buys in a supported renderer. Among the integrated GPUs, the review unit leads the Radeon 890M by more than four times across all three scenes, and it lands at 37 percent of the RTX PRO 3000, a respectable showing for a system with no discrete graphics. CPU rendering separates the four by only a few percent, with the review unit taking Monster outright.

LuxMark

LuxMark measures GPU compute performance by rendering complex scenes through OpenCL, based on LuxCoreRender. We run the Food and Hall scenes on all available OpenCL devices in each system, so single-GPU systems are scored on that GPU while the dual-GPU systems render on the discrete and integrated GPUs together, as noted in the column headers. Higher scores are better.

LuxMark v4	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000 + iGPU)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000 + iGPU)
Hall	3,505	2,058	19,300	11,342
Food	1,713	1,034	7,624	4,103

 

The review unit led the single-GPU systems by 70% in Hall, essentially matching its 14-inch twin, while the 7 16’s combined RTX PRO 3000 and iGPU output is in a different class at 19,300.

V-Ray

Chaos V-Ray measures ray-traced rendering throughput, reported in vpaths, where higher is better. We run the CUDA-compatible engine on every system so results remain comparable to notebooks with only integrated graphics; on systems without a discrete GPU, that path executes on the integrated graphics, even though V-Ray reports the processor name in its device field. On dedicated NVIDIA hardware, we also capture V-Ray’s RTX engine, which engages the card’s ray tracing cores and is reported separately.

V-Ray GPU (vpaths)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
CUDA Engine	946	1,039	2,469	1,568
RTX Engine	N/A	N/A	3,891	2,589

 

The Radeon 890M takes the integrated matchup here by 10%, one of the few GPU tests where it beats the Arc Pro B390. The 7 16’s RTX PRO 3000 is the clear headliner, and its 3,891 vpaths on the RTX engine are 50% up on the ThinkPad’s RTX PRO 1000 in the same mode.

3DMark CPU Profile

The 3DMark CPU Profile benchmark measures CPU performance at fixed thread counts, from a single thread up to the maximum available, showing how performance scales as more cores are engaged. Higher scores are better.

3DMark CPU Profile	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
Max Threads	10,748	9,267	10,557	10,500
8 Threads	6,818	6,573	5,996	6,550
4 Threads	4,483	4,238	4,261	4,219
1 Thread	1,210	1,178	1,185	1,165

 

The review unit sweeps every thread count, and its 10,748 max threads score is the best of any Pro Precision unit we have tested, 4.6% up on its 14-inch twin from the same silicon.

3DMark Storage and Blackmagic Disk Speed Test

3DMark Storage measures how an SSD performs during gaming-related tasks such as loading games, installing software, saving progress, and moving game files. Blackmagic Disk Speed Test measures an SSD’s sequential read and write speeds using large media files. Higher is better in both.

Storage	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
3DMark Storage	2,804	2,325	2,189	3,094
Blackmagic Write (MB/s)	7,660.2	5,070.5	7,387.8	8,262.3
Blackmagic Read (MB/s)	8,418.1	5,071.2	6,776.2	8,511.5

 

The review unit’s SK hynix PCB01 posted solid Gen5 numbers, though this is one place the 14-inch twin’s Micron 4600 pulls ahead, reading nearly 9.8 GB/s against 8.4 here and scoring 3,093 in 3DMark Storage versus 2,804. Drive assignments vary within the family: the AMD twin’s SanDisk SN7100S lands near 5 GB/s in both directions, and the 7 16’s dual-drive RAID 0 volume wins nothing in these traces, trailing even in reads. Buyers with storage-sensitive workflows should watch which SSD their configuration ships with.

Blackmagic RAW Speed Test

The Blackmagic RAW Speed Test measures how many frames per second a system can decode Blackmagic RAW video on the CPU and on the GPU. We quote the 8K results at 12:1 compression, and higher is better.

Blackmagic RAW Speed Test	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
8K 12:1 CPU (fps)	77	74	77	77
8K 12:1 GPU (fps)	87	49	137	96

 

CPU decode is effectively flat across the group at 74 to 77 fps. On the GPU, the 7 16 RTX PRO 3000 runs away with it at 137 fps through CUDA, while the review unit’s 87 fps over OpenCL comfortably clears real-time 8K playback, and the Radeon 890M falls short at 49.

Topaz Video AI

The Topaz Video AI benchmark measures AI video upscaling and frame-interpolation performance in frames per second across the application’s enhancement models, run here at 1080p input, where higher is better. The 16X Slowmo Aion model failed to complete on both Intel-graphics Precisions, this unit and the 7 16, while the AMD twin ran it without issue.

Topaz Video AI (fps)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
Artemis 1X / 2X / 4X	6.24 / 5.21 / 1.90	3.72 / 2.21 / 0.78	12.38 / 8.94 / 3.15	5.17 / 3.19 / 1.12
Iris 1X / 2X / 4X	5.29 / 3.19 / 0.96	4.91 / 2.72 / 0.92	13.06 / 7.49 / 2.32	5.91 / 3.12 / 1.01
Proteus 1X / 2X / 4X	6.45 / 6.09 / 2.47	3.99 / 2.70 / 1.18	12.06 / 8.60 / 2.66	4.78 / 3.14 / 1.05
Gaia 1X / 2X / 4X	3.30 / 2.26 / 1.51	1.87 / 1.34 / 0.96	3.73 / 2.66 / 2.02	1.62 / 1.13 / 0.79
Nyx 1X / 2X	1.56 / 1.57	1.87 / 1.53	3.59 / 3.08	2.40 / 2.09
Hyperion HDR 1X	3.23	11.48	15.58	14.56
4X Slowmo Apollo / APFast	8.48 / 22.00	6.08 / 17.59	18.04 / 30.60	10.39 / 29.94
16X Slowmo Aion	DNF	9.05	DNF	N/A

 

The 7 16’s RTX PRO 3000 leads the upscaling models across the board, roughly doubling the review unit in Artemis and Proteus, which is the expected order of things. More interesting is the middle of the table: the Arc Pro B390 beats the RTX PRO 1000 in Artemis, Proteus, and Gaia while losing the interpolation models and Hyperion HDR, the same split we saw on the 14s. The Aion failure on Intel graphics repeats here, one for the driver team.

UL Procyon AI Text Generation

The Procyon AI Text Generation Benchmark streamlines LLM performance testing by providing a concise, consistent evaluation method. It enables repeated testing across four local models, Phi, Mistral, Llama3, and Llama2, while minimizing the complexity of large models and the number of variables. Developed with AI hardware leaders, it optimizes the use of local AI accelerators to deliver more reliable, efficient performance assessments. All four systems ran the models through ONNX Runtime with DirectML on their GPUs.

Procyon AI Text Generation	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
Phi	893	434	2,244	1,618
Mistral	646	403	2,062	1,397
Llama3	669	357	1,859	1,252
Llama2	750	390	1,990	DNF

 

The 7 16 owns this table, with its 12GB card also completing Llama2 at 1,990, where the 8GB RTX PRO 1000 could not load the model. Among the integrated GPUs, the Arc Pro B390 roughly doubles the Radeon 890M in Phi and Llama2, and the review unit’s 64GB memory pool finishes everything; the quiet advantage shared-memory platforms hold for local AI.

UL Procyon AI Computer Vision

The Procyon AI Computer Vision Benchmark measures AI inference performance across CPUs, GPUs, and dedicated accelerators using a range of neural networks, evaluating tasks such as image classification, object detection, segmentation, and super-resolution with models including MobileNet V3, Inception V4, YOLO V3, DeepLab V3, Real ESRGAN, and ResNet 50. The WinML runs use float32 on CPU and GPU, giving a like-for-like view across vendors. We also run the newer Computer Vision 2 suite through each vendor’s native path: OpenVINO in int8 on the Intel NPUs and fp16 on their iGPUs, TensorRT in fp16 on the RTX PRO 3000, and Ryzen AI on the AMD NPU; those results are listed separately since precision and runtime differ by platform. Higher scores are better.

Procyon AI Computer Vision (WinML)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
CPU	143	114	122	134
GPU	410	245	553	426

 

Procyon AI Computer Vision 2 (native runtimes)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Dell Pro Precision 7 16
NPU (int8)	1,630	1,189	1,614
iGPU (fp16)	1,529	N/A	837
dGPU (TensorRT fp16)	N/A	N/A	3,470

 

In the vendor-neutral WinML view, the review unit posts the best CPU score and lands within 4% of the ThinkPad’s dGPU on graphics. On the native paths, the Intel AI Boost NPUs in the review unit and the 7 16 are within 1% of each other, both more than a third ahead of the Ryzen AI NPU, and the review unit’s iGPU nearly matches its NPU. Note the 7 16’s iGPU score of 837 comes from the smaller integrated Arc in the Core Ultra 9 386H, not the B390 class part in the 5-series units; its TensorRT result on the RTX PRO 3000 towers over everything at 3,470.

UL Procyon AI Image Generation

The Procyon AI Image Generation Benchmark provides a consistent method for measuring AI inference performance from low-power NPUs to high-end GPUs, with three tests: Stable Diffusion XL FP16 for high-end GPUs, Stable Diffusion 1.5 FP16 for moderately powerful GPUs, and Stable Diffusion 1.5 INT8 for low-power devices. The benchmark uses the optimal inference path for each platform: OpenVINO on Intel systems, the AMD-optimized DirectML pipeline on Radeon GPUs, and TensorRT on NVIDIA GPUs. The INT8 test uses Intel’s quantized SD 1.5 model where supported; the AMD pipeline does not offer a comparable quantized run. The 7 16 runs this suite through TensorRT on its RTX PRO 3000. New with this round, we also ran the INT8 workload on the Intel NPU.

Procyon AI Image Generation	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Dell Pro Precision 7 16 (RTX PRO 3000)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
SD 1.5 FP16	638	316	1,424	943
SD 1.5 INT8	7,778	2,855	17,287	12,403
SDXL FP16	738	200	1,273	765
SD 1.5 INT8 NPU	2,881	2,870	N/A	N/A

 

At 50.8 seconds per SDXL image, the review unit sits within 4% of the RTX PRO 1000, mirroring the 14s result, while the 7 16’s TensorRT run turns in 1,273 at 29.4 seconds per image for those who need volume. The NPU run at 2,881 delivers about 37% of the iGPU’s INT8 throughput while leaving the GPU free. Scores are not comparable between the FP16 and INT8 rows since the workloads use different batch sizes and step counts.

SPECviewperf 15

SPECviewperf 15 measures graphics performance using viewsets derived from professional applications in CAD, 3D modeling, rendering, engineering, and medical visualization, replayed here at 1080p. Higher scores are better, although performance can vary considerably between applications and graphics architectures. The 7 16 ran SPECviewperf at its native 4K resolution, which is not comparable to the FHD runs, so it sits this table out; the enscape-01 viewset also produced an unusually low score on the AMD twin that is worth a driver revisit.

SPECviewperf 15 (FHD)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel (Arc Pro B390)	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD (Radeon 890M)	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7 (RTX PRO 1000)
3dsmax-08	21.46	26.23	28.20
blender-01	23.15	23.17	40.69
catia-07	26.35	22.70	43.36
creo-04	68.14	49.42	107.59
energy-04	38.86	29.69	45.79
enscape-01	15.24	8.45	25.45
maya-07	85.61	53.48	112.84
medical-04	70.91	73.31	86.38
snx-05	80.24	61.33	103.61
solidworks-08	32.99	36.40	53.63
unreal_engine-01	42.15	27.38	49.24

 

The review unit wins seven of the eleven viewsets against the Radeon 890M, with the certified CAD and engineering traces (creo, maya, snx, energy) showing the Arc Pro driver stack at its best. Unlike its 14-inch twin, it completed catia-07 cleanly at 26.35. The RTX PRO 1000 sweeps the table. For the record, the 7 16 native-4K run posted 114.70 in creo-04 and 63.99 in solidworks-08 even at four times the pixels, so its FHD equivalents would land higher still.

SPECworkstation 4

SPECworkstation 4 measures workstation performance across CPU, graphics, storage, AI, product design, engineering, financial services, and other professional workloads, using real applications grouped into seven industry verticals. Higher scores are better, and N/A means the system did not complete every workload required for that category. The standalone 7-Zip workload inside SPECworkstation failed on both the AMD twin and the 7 16, which suppresses their CPU subsystem and Productivity and Development scores; a rerun of the AMD twin reproduced the same failure, and our separate 7-Zip section above covers that ground.

SPECworkstation 4	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel	Dell Pro Precision 5 16s AMD	Dell Pro Precision 7 16	Lenovo ThinkPad P14s Gen 7
Hardware Subsystems
Graphics	2.67	2.65	6.54	4.51
Accelerator	2.25	2.31	3.88	3.26
Storage	1.80	1.00	1.30	1.67
CPU	1.34	N/A	N/A	1.35
Industry Verticals
AI & Machine Learning	1.47	1.45	1.76	1.65
Energy	1.55	1.38	1.87	1.69
Financial Services	0.94	1.29	1.03	0.96
Life Sciences	1.84	1.47	2.03	1.82
Media & Entertainment	1.60	1.48	1.87	1.81
Product Design	1.75	1.41	1.87	1.89
Productivity & Development	1.35	N/A	N/A	1.34

 

The review unit posts the best Storage subsystem score of the four systems. The 7 16’s Graphics subsystem score of 6.54 shows the dGPU gap at its widest, while the review unit and its AMD twin split the verticals, with AMD ahead in Financial Services and the review unit well ahead in Life Sciences and Product Design. Against the ThinkPad, the review unit trades verticals rather than trailing across the board, taking Life Sciences and splitting the productivity scores.

Conclusion

The Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel ended up delivering the strongest CPU performance we have seen from any B390-based system, along with the longest battery life across the Pro Precision lineup we tested. Its 18,965 Geekbench 7 multicore score even beat the Core Ultra 9-equipped Pro Precision 7 16, and 7-Zip compression topped the group. PCMark 10 was equally strong at 9,994, six points shy of the 10,000 mark and 25 behind the 14-inch Intel model. Battery life was even more impressive at 24 hours and 43 minutes, more than double the Pro Precision 7 16, nearly nine hours beyond the ThinkPad P14s Gen 7, and 53 minutes longer than the 14s Intel despite its larger QHD+ display.

The Arc Pro B390 also performed well across the professional graphics and AI tests, including strong certified ISV results, good Topaz upscaling performance, SDXL image generation within 4% of the RTX PRO 1000, and an NPU image generation score of 2,881.

Choosing between the Pro Precision models depends heavily on the workload. The AMD 16s has an advantage in heavily threaded rendering and y-cruncher, while the Intel model performed better in single-threaded work, graphics, AI, storage, and battery testing. Buyers who need substantially more GPU performance can move up to the Pro Precision 7 16, which was roughly 2.7 times faster in Blender and much faster in V-Ray, local AI text generation, and BRAW processing, but that configuration costs roughly $1,900 to $2,300 more and lasts less than half as long on battery. Compared with the Intel 14s, the 16s delivers very similar overall performance while adding the larger QHD+ display, numeric keypad, slightly better sustained CPU results, and another 53 minutes of battery life, although it is larger and heavier, and our review unit shipped with a slower SSD. The 16s also gives IT teams good service access, with a customer-replaceable battery along with replaceable LPCAMM2 memory, SSD, WLAN card, fan, and other internal components.

For configuration options and current pricing, visit the Dell Pro Precision 5 Series 16S product page.

Leaderboard: The Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel also holds the Best Battery Life spot on our Best Mobile Workstations leaderboard.

The post Dell Pro Precision 5 16s Intel Review: 24 Hours of Battery in a 16-Inch Workstation appeared first on StorageReview.com.

KIOXIA has introduced the GP1 Series PCIe 6.0 NVMe SSD, the first product in its GP Series of Super High IOPS drives optimized for GPU direct access. KIOXIA describes it as building on the GP Series technology it introduced in March, now realized in shipping silicon. Built around second-generation KIOXIA XL-FLASH memory, the drive is meant to serve as a flash-based memory extension tier for AI systems that need lower latency and faster access to large datasets.

The GP1 Series extends High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) with a high-speed flash storage layer. Instead of relying only on adding more HBM, AI platforms can use flash memory to expand capacity and improve GPU utilization. KIOXIA says this approach reduces the cost of scaling AI memory compared to expanding HBM alone.

KIOXIA GP1 Specifications

Specification	Details
Interface	PCIe 6.0, NVMe 2.2
Flash Memory	KIOXIA XL-FLASH generation 2 low-latency flash memory
Random Read Performance	Up to 10 million random read IOPS (512-byte block size)
Form Factors	E3.S, E1.S 9.5mm, E1.S 15mm
Cooling Support	Cold-plate liquid cooling supported on E3.S and E1.S 9.5mm models; all form factors also support traditional air-cooled environments
Endurance	Up to 50 DWPD

 

The GP1 delivers up to 10 million random-read IOPS at a 512-byte block size, with KIOXIA noting the usual caveat that real-world numbers vary by host, drivers, and workload. The company says the architecture is designed to scale from today’s 10 million random read IOPS to future generations targeting up to 100 million IOPS.

The drives use KIOXIA’s second-generation XL-FLASH memory, designed to provide lower latency and finer-grained 512-byte data access than conventional TLC-based SSDs. KIOXIA says this also reduces power consumed per I/O operation, an important factor for dense AI deployments. That is the dividing line between this drive and the CM10 KIOXIA announced days earlier: the CM10 is a capacity-oriented enterprise drive on 332-layer BiCS FLASH generation 10 TLC, while the GP1 trades capacity for latency and IOPS on XL-FLASH.

“The AI memory wall is a critical challenge for our industry to solve on the way to growing the scale and capability of AI deployment,” said Neville Ichhaporia, senior vice president and general manager of the SSD business unit at KIOXIA America. “KIOXIA’s XL-FLASH is uniquely positioned to deliver the extremely high performance and low-latency data access needed to support GPUs as a memory extension tier. It also offers a significantly lower cost per gigabyte than expanding in-node HBM or DRAM capacity.”

Several enterprise form factors will be available, including E3.S and E1.S in 9.5mm and 15mm heights. The E3.S and E1.S 9.5mm versions support cold-plate liquid cooling. All models can operate in traditional air-cooled server environments.

KIOXIA GP1 Availability

KIOXIA plans to provide evaluation samples of the GP1 Series to select customers by the end of 2026, noting that the samples are for functional check purposes only and that final specifications may differ in mass production. The drives will be shown at FMS: the Future of Memory and Storage, taking place August 4 to 6 in Santa Clara, California.

The post KIOXIA GP1 Series Hits 10 Million Random Read IOPS on XL-FLASH Gen 2 appeared first on StorageReview.com.

KIOXIA has introduced the CM10 Series, the company’s first PCIe 6.0 enterprise SSD and its first enterprise drive built on BiCS FLASH generation 10 TLC memory. The drives cover E3.S, E1.S, and 2.5-inch form factors, with capacities ranging from 1.60TB to 61.44TB and endurance options for both read-intensive and mixed-use workloads.

The PCIe 6.0 portion of the CM10 family includes E3.S drives with a 7.5mm thickness and E1.S models in 9.5mm and 15mm formats. These EDSFF versions use 332-layer BiCS FLASH generation 10 TLC memory, while the 15mm 2.5-inch model uses a PCIe 5.0 interface and BiCS FLASH generation 8 TLC memory.

All three form factors support NVMe 2.1 and the Open Compute Project Datacenter NVMe SSD Specification 2.7, although not all requirements in the OCP specification are supported. NVMe Flexible Data Placement is also included, allowing compatible hosts to organize data placement to reduce internal write amplification and improve flash utilization.

KIOXIA CM10 Targets AI Inference and KV Cache Workloads

The CM10 Series is aimed at enterprise and AI workloads, including AI inference and key-value cache. KIOXIA says the drives are designed to support the NVIDIA CMX context memory storage solution, which extends effective GPU memory with a shared, pod-level context tier optimized for ephemeral KV cache.

KIOXIA frames the demand in specific terms: as AI models scale to trillions of parameters and agentic AI context windows expand to millions of tokens, the need for high-performance KV cache storage grows accordingly. Moving part of that cache from GPU memory to high-speed flash gives infrastructure designers another tier for retaining context data without holding all of it in accelerator memory.

Compared with the previous CM9 Series, the CM10 is rated for up to approximately 92% higher sequential read performance and up to approximately 85% higher random read performance. As always, actual real-world performance will depend on the host platform, software, drivers, operating system, and workload conditions.

“As AI infrastructure evolves, storage must deliver not only higher performance but also greater efficiency and deployment flexibility,” said Neville Ichhaporia, senior vice president and general manager of the SSD business unit at KIOXIA America. “The KIOXIA CM10 Series reflects our continued commitment to advancing flash storage that helps customers build more capable, scalable, and efficient AI infrastructure.”

KIOXIA CM10 Series Specifications

Specification	EDSFF Models	2.5-inch Model
Interface and Form Factor
Interface	PCIe 6.0; NVMe 2.1 specification compliant	PCIe 5.0; NVMe 2.1 specification compliant
OCP support	OCP Datacenter NVMe SSD Specification v2.7 support; not all requirements are supported	OCP Datacenter NVMe SSD Specification v2.7 support; not all requirements are supported
NVMe Flexible Data Placement	Supported	Supported
Form factor	E3.S, 7.5 mm thickness E1.S, 9.5 mm or 15 mm thickness	2.5-inch, 15 mm thickness
Capacity and endurance	Capacities from 1.60 TB to 61.44 TB across the CM10 Series, varying by form factor; read-intensive (1 DWPD) and mixed-use (3 DWPD) endurance options
Architecture and Data Protection
Architecture	KIOXIA controller and firmware with BiCS FLASH generation 10 TLC memory	KIOXIA controller and firmware with BiCS FLASH generation 8 TLC memory
High availability	Dual-port design on E3.S models only	Dual-port design
Data protection	Power loss protection and end-to-end data protection	Power loss protection and end-to-end data protection
Security options	SIE, SED, planned SED FIPS 140-3, post-quantum cryptography, CNSA 2.0, and SPDM 1.4 attestation support
Power and Cooling
Power states	Power states above 25W supported	Not specified
Cooling	Traditional air cooling supported on all EDSFF models Direct cold-plate liquid cooling supported on E3.S and 9.5 mm E1.S models	Traditional air cooling supported
Power management	NVMe TP4199 Self-Reported Drive Power Support	NVMe TP4199 Self-Reported Drive Power Support

Direct Liquid Cooling for E3.S and E1.S

Direct cold-plate liquid cooling is supported by the E3.S and 9.5mm E1.S models, while every CM10 form factor can operate in a traditional air-cooled environment. The capability is not unique to this family: KIOXIA introduced its first liquid-cooled SSD a day before the CM10 with the E1.S NX1 Series, a PCIe 5.0 data center drive built on generation 8 memory.

The PCIe 6.0 EDSFF drives support power states above 25W, giving the controller and flash a larger power envelope for higher-performance workloads. NVMe TP4199 Self-Reported Drive Power support allows the SSD to communicate its power use to compatible systems.

Dual-port connectivity is included on the E3.S and 2.5-inch versions for high-availability deployments. Power loss protection and end-to-end data protection are available across the listed form factors. Moreover, security options include Secure Instant Erase, Self-Encrypting Drive models, a planned FIPS 140-3 SED option, post-quantum cryptography, CNSA 2.0 support, and SPDM 1.4 attestation. Optional SED models support TCG Opal SSC, with some feature exceptions, and may not be available in every country due to local regulations.

KIOXIA CM10 Series Availability

KIOXIA CM10 Series drives are currently being sampled for select customers for functional testing, and the sample specifications may differ from the eventual production versions. KIOXIA will display the drives at FMS: the Future of Memory and Storage in Santa Clara, California, from August 4 to 6.

The post KIOXIA CM10 Is Its First PCIe 6.0 Enterprise SSD, Aimed at NVIDIA CMX KV Cache appeared first on StorageReview.com.

Veeam has released Data Platform v13.1 alongside Veeam Data Cloud Vault Archive, combining a broad backup and recovery update with a new managed storage tier for long-term retention. Version 13.1 expands hypervisor and enterprise application coverage, extends malware detection to more data locations, and adds identity recovery and cryptography features. Vault Archive offers organizations a lower-cost place to keep older backups and large unstructured data sets that require immutability, encryption, and residency control.

Veeam Data Platform v13.1 is now generally available, with the Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization plug-in scheduled for later in Q3. Veeam Data Cloud Vault Archive is also available and integrates with v13.1 for policy-based tiering and direct archiving of NAS data.

Veeam Data Platform v13.1 Adds Six Hypervisor Platforms

Hypervisor coverage in Veeam Data Platform v13.1 spans 14 platforms, with Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization, Sangfor aSV, XCP-ng, Citrix XenServer, VergeIO, and Platform9 joining the list. Veeam also plans to use its Universal Hypervisor API to extend protection to more platforms.

Enterprise application protection now covers EPIC EHR, Db2 on Windows, and Oracle with incremental merge. V13.1 also introduces an Application Backup Repository for custom applications, bringing those workloads under the reporting, security, and recovery orchestration tools used elsewhere in the platform.

Security and recovery updates extend malware scanning to NAS and add more cloud threat detection for Microsoft Azure. Active Directory Forest Recovery supports identity restoration after an attack. Restore-point scanning lets administrators inspect data for threats before returning it to production, a capability Veeam relies on most. The company cites its own 2026 Data Trust and Resilience Report finding that 90% of organizations are confident they can recover from a cyber incident, while fewer than one in three ransomware victims actually recovered all their data. Post-quantum cryptography aligned with NIST standards and hybrid FIPS support are also part of the release.

NAS changes expand long-term retention options for older backups and large unstructured data sets. Administrators can send this data directly to AWS S3 Glacier, Azure Archive, other compatible archive storage, or Veeam Data Cloud Vault Archive instead of keeping it on higher-cost storage designed for faster recovery.

Veeam Data Cloud Vault Archive Targets Long-Term Retention

Veeam Data Cloud Vault Archive adds an archival object storage tier for aged backups, large unstructured data sets, and redundant, obsolete, or trivial data. Policy-based tiering moves older backups from Veeam Data Cloud Vault to the Archive tier, while NAS Direct to Archive sends large NAS datasets directly to long-term cloud storage. Veeam’s case for treating an archive as a security asset rather than a cost line rests on two of its own figures: backup repositories are targeted in 96% of ransomware attacks, and 58% of organizations say data residency and sovereignty are the most important factors in deciding where data is stored.

Archived data uses WORM immutability, logical air-gapping, and AES-256 encryption with customer-controlled keys. Organizations can select from supported storage locations to meet residency requirements, and alternate-location recovery is available when archived data must be restored at a location other than its original site.

“Long-term retention of that data has become a cyber resilience, compliance, and cost challenge all at once,” said Rehan Jalil, President of Products and Technology at Veeam. “Veeam Data Cloud Vault Archive gives customers a secure, immutable, and cost-effective way to tier aging backups, cold, and ROT data off premium storage while keeping a trusted copy on storage better suited for long-term retention.”

Typical retrieval from Vault Archive takes more than 15 hours, compared to the retrieval times listed in minutes for Veeam Vault Foundation and Advanced, and the tier carries a 180-day minimum retention period compared to 30 days for the other two. The read allowance moves in the same direction: Archive includes no reads and bills them in arrears, Foundation is fair use, and Advanced is unlimited. Archive is also rated at 11 nines of durability, whereas Advanced goes up to 12 nines with synchronous geo-copies, and its data locality choice is at the region level rather than the country level, as Foundation offers. The tier is intended for compliance copies, aging backup chains, and data that must be retained but is rarely accessed, and the trade-offs read accordingly.

Vault Archive can also serve as the immutable or air-gapped copy in Veeam’s 3-2-1-1-0 backup model. As a managed cloud service, it removes physical media handling, transport, and off-site logistics associated with tape while keeping archived data recoverable when needed.

Veeam Data Cloud Vault Archive Pricing and Availability

Veeam Data Cloud Vault Archive is generally available now through Veeam’s authorized partners, resellers, distributors, cloud marketplaces, and online store. Archive pricing is $4.50 per TB per month, billed annually upfront, which is roughly a third of the $14 per TB per month Foundation tier and less than a fifth of the Advanced tier at $24. Storage and write activity are included, while reads and restores are not and are billed in arrears. The tier requires a minimum 180-day retention period. Availability varies by region, and Archive is not offered everywhere Veeam Vault is: most United States and Canada regions carry all three tiers, while Brazil South currently lists Foundation and Advanced only. Veeam publishes a per-region tier map on its Vault page.

The post Veeam Ships Data Platform v13.1 and a $4.50/TB Vault Archive Tier for Cold Backup Data appeared first on StorageReview.com.

Dell’s naming puts the Pro 5 14 a rung below the Pro 7 in its commercial lineup, but the spec sheet complicates that hierarchy. This is the compact counterpart to the Dell Pro 5 16 AMD we reviewed earlier, yet Dell equips it with a Core Ultra X7 368H, which is a higher-tier processor than the Core Ultra 7 366H used by the more premium Pro 7 14 Intel. That gives this particular Pro 5 a performance advantage in several areas despite its lower position in Dell’s naming structure.

Inside our review unit, the Core Ultra X7 368H provides 16 cores, a maximum clock speed of 5.0GHz, Arc B390 integrated graphics, and a 50 TOPS NPU. Dell supports it with 64GB of dual-channel LPCAMM2-8533 memory and a 1TB PCIe Gen5 SSD. This configuration has enough memory and storage bandwidth for large datasets, creative software, local AI applications, and demanding multitasking, while still fitting into a 14-inch laptop.

Using LPCAMM2 also avoids one of the common limitations found in thin business systems. The single module delivers the speed and efficiency associated with LPDDR memory, but it can still be removed if it fails or if a future upgrade becomes necessary. That gives an IT department more flexibility when maintaining the laptop several years into a deployment.

Since the Pro 5 14 is designed for business fleets, Dell includes Intel vPro along with SafeBIOS, Trusted Device, Dell Command Update, and optional integration with Microsoft Intune. Our configuration also has a ControlVault 3+ fingerprint reader, an 8MP infrared camera for Windows Hello, Wi-Fi 7, and three years of ProSupport with next-business-day onsite service following remote diagnosis. The combination covers both day-to-day user authentication and the remote management needs of a larger organization.

Our Pro 5 14 configuration is listed at $5,492, placing it above the Pro 5 16 AMD and even slightly above the Pro 7 14 AMD tested alongside it. Dell’s commercial customers often negotiate pricing through account representatives, especially when purchasing systems in volume, so the listed figure may be higher than the final deployment cost. That said, buyers will need to place considerable value on the faster Intel processor, replaceable high-speed memory, and fleet support package to justify the price.

Specification	Dell Pro 5 14
Overview
Model	Dell Pro 5 14 (P514260)
Operating System	Windows 11 Pro, Copilot+ PC
Hardware
Processor	Series 3 Intel Core Ultra X7 368H vPro 16 cores Up to 5.0GHz 50 TOPS NPU
Graphics	Intel Arc B390 integrated graphics, 12 Xe cores
Memory	64GB LPCAMM2, 8,533 MT/s, dual-channel
Storage	1TB Performance SSD, PCIe Gen5, SED Ready
Display and Camera
Display	14-inch WUXGA, non-touch, VRR, 500 nits, 100% sRGB, anti-glare, super low power, lightweight, Low Blue Light
Camera	8MP RGB HDR + IR camera, 1440p at 30 fps, Presence Detection, Temporal Noise Reduction, Camera Shutter
Connectivity
Wireless	Intel Wi-Fi 7 BE211, 2×2, qualified against Bluetooth® Core 6.0
Ports	2× Thunderbolt 4 2× USB Type-A 1× HDMI 2.1 1× RJ45 Ethernet 1× Global headset port 1× Optional external nano SIM card tray 1× Optional Contacted Smart Card Reader 1× Wedge Shaped Lock Slot
Input and Security
Keyboard	English (US) Mini-LED backlit keyboard
Security	Fingerprint reader with ControlVault 3+ TPM 2.0, FIPS 140-3 and TCG Certified Quantum-resistant BIOS verification Chassis-intrusion switch Camera shutter Security lock slot
Manageability	Intel vPro® Manageability with Intel® Active Management Technology
Power and Support
Battery	3-cell, 70Wh, ExpressCharge and ExpressCharge Boost capable
Power Supply	65W USB-C PECOS-Green AC Adapter
Service	ProSupport Next Business Day Onsite Service after remote diagnosis with HW-SW Support, 36 months
Pricing
Base Price	$2,259
Price as Tested	$5,492, no discounts, Dell.com single-unit price

Design and Build

The Dell Pro 5 14 keeps its footprint small enough for regular travel without giving up access to replaceable memory, storage, and other internal components. It measures 12.42 inches wide, 8.89 inches deep, and up to 0.71 inches thick, with a starting weight of 2.96 pounds. Dell offers an all-aluminum chassis or a mixed-material version that pairs an aluminum top cover with a glass fiber composite palm rest and bottom cover, depending on the configuration.

Opening the bottom provides access to the LPCAMM2 memory module, M.2 SSD, wireless card, cooling system, and battery. Like the larger model, Dell has made the USB-C ports and mainboard modular, which can reduce the amount of hardware that needs to be replaced when one component fails. The 70Wh battery in our unit is customer-replaceable, an increasingly uncommon feature in thin 14-inch laptops and a useful option for businesses planning to keep systems in service for several years.

Durability testing covers an 18-inch free fall plus 1,000 micro-drop cycles, 30,000 hinge cycles, USB-C ports stressed with 9 kg of force over 400 cycles, and keyboard spills of up to 3.4 fluid ounces, or about 100 ml. This should be enough for the usual wear a business laptop can encounter while moving between desks, meeting rooms, and remote work locations.

Display and Input

Our review build has a 14-inch WUXGA display with a 1920 x 1200 resolution, a variable refresh rate ranging from 1Hz to 120Hz, 500-nit brightness, and full sRGB coverage. The 16:10 aspect ratio provides additional vertical room for documents and web pages, while the anti-glare coating helps control reflections in brightly lit offices. Dell also includes ComfortView Plus Low Blue Light technology, and the super-low-power panel can reduce energy use when the higher refresh rate is unnecessary.

The spill-resistant keyboard uses Mini-LED backlighting, which reduces power consumption compared with a conventional backlight while still providing even illumination across the keys. Its 14-inch layout does not include the numeric keypad found on the Pro 5 16, but the keyboard makes good use of the available width and includes a dedicated AI hotkey. A large clickpad occupies much of the remaining palm-rest area.

Video calls are covered by an 8MP RGB HDR camera recording at 1440p and 30 frames per second. It includes infrared support for Windows Hello, presence detection, temporal noise reduction, and a physical camera shutter. The higher-resolution sensor also provides more flexibility for framing and background effects than the basic 1080p camera available on lower configurations.

Ports and Connectivity

The Dell Pro 5 14 features a nice selection of ports for a laptop of this size. Its two Thunderbolt 4 connections support USB4 at 40Gbps, DisplayPort 2.1, USB Power Delivery, and external docks or displays. Dell also includes two 5Gbps USB Type-A ports, with PowerShare available on one, along with HDMI 2.1, Gigabit Ethernet, a global headset jack, and a wedge-shaped lock slot.

Optional configurations can add a contacted smart-card reader and an external nano-SIM tray for mobile broadband.

Wireless connectivity in our build includes an Intel BE211 adapter with 2×2 Wi-Fi 7 and Bluetooth support qualified against Bluetooth Core 6.0. The laptop charges over USB-C using the included 65W adapter, though Dell notes that the 70Wh battery requires at least a 100W USB-C adapter for ExpressCharge and ExpressCharge Boost. Buyers who want the faster charging modes will therefore need to upgrade from the bundled adapter.

Security and Manageability

The Core Ultra X7 368H includes Intel vPro and Active Management Technology, allowing IT teams to remotely inventory, diagnose, update, and manage deployed systems. Dell Management Portal can also work alongside Microsoft Intune, giving administrators a central location for BIOS settings, application deployment, and device updates across a larger fleet.

Security features include TPM 2.0 with FIPS 140-3 certification, SafeBIOS, Trusted Device, quantum-resistant BIOS verification, and a chassis-intrusion switch (the latter of which comes standard on this model). Our build also has a fingerprint reader with ControlVault 3+, which stores authentication credentials in dedicated hardware, while the IR camera provides Windows Hello facial recognition. A physical camera shutter and wedge lock slot add direct controls for users working in shared or public spaces.

Our configuration includes 36 months of Dell ProSupport with next-business-day onsite service following remote diagnosis. For businesses deploying the Pro 5 14 across multiple offices or remote employees, onsite repairs can really shorten the time a system is unavailable and sometimes eliminate the need to ship laptops back to a central IT department.

Performance

To see how the Dell Pro 5 14 compares with the rest of Dell’s current commercial lineup, we tested it alongside the Dell Pro 7 14 and Dell Pro 5 16 AMD configurations, as well as the Dell Pro 7 14 Intel. All four laptops were evaluated using our standard power profile across a broad range of workloads, including general productivity, CPU rendering, GPU compute, professional visualization, storage, AI, and battery life.

The Dell Pro 5 14 and Pro 7 14 Intel may both use Intel Core Ultra Series 3 processors, but the hardware inside is quite different. The Pro 5 14 has the higher-tier Core Ultra X7 368H with Arc B390 integrated graphics, while the more expensive Pro 7 14 uses the Core Ultra 7 366H and its smaller four-core Intel Graphics GPU. The gap was easy to see in our testing, especially across UL Procyon’s AI Computer Vision, Text Generation, and Image Generation benchmarks, where the Pro 5 14 was often the fastest system in the group and finished well ahead of its pricier counterpart in the GPU-accelerated tests.

Test Systems

Specification	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel)
CPU	Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 (12C/24T)	Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 (12C/24T)	Core Ultra 7 366H (16C)	Core Ultra X7 368H (16C)
GPU	Radeon 890M	Radeon 890M	Intel Graphics (4Xe)	Intel Arc B390 (12Xe)
Memory	64 GB DDR5-5600	64 GB LPDDR5x-8533	64 GB LPDDR5x-8533	64 GB LPCAMM2-8533
Storage	SanDisk PC SN5100S 1 TB	Samsung BM9C1a 1 TB	SK hynix PCB01 1 TB	SK hynix PCB01 1 TB
Display	16″ WQXGA	14″ WUXGA	14″ WUXGA	14″ WUXGA
Price as Tested	$4,648	$5,377	$5,600	$5,492

UL Procyon: AI Computer Vision

The Procyon AI Computer Vision Benchmark measures AI inference performance across CPUs, GPUs, and dedicated accelerators using a range of state-of-the-art neural networks. It evaluates tasks such as image classification, object detection, segmentation, and super-resolution using models including MobileNet V3, Inception V4, YOLO V3, DeepLab V3, Real ESRGAN, and ResNet 50. Tests are run on multiple inference engines, including NVIDIA TensorRT, Intel OpenVINO, Qualcomm SNPE, Microsoft Windows ML, and Apple Core ML, providing a broad view of hardware and software efficiency. Results are reported for float- and integer-optimized models, providing a consistent, practical measure of machine vision performance for professional workloads.

The Dell Pro 5 14 with the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H delivered the strongest overall showing in UL Procyon’s AI Computer Vision benchmark. On the CPU side, it posted an overall score of 119, narrowly trailing the Dell Pro 7 14 Intel’s class-leading 121 by less than 2% while outperforming both AMD-based systems by 31% to 55%. The system also produced the fastest results in MobileNet V3 (1.09 ms), ResNet 50 (10.11 ms), Inception V4 (29.77 ms), and REAL-ESRGAN (2,884.51 ms), demonstrating the effectiveness of Intel’s software stack for CPU-driven AI inference workloads. Only DeepLab V3 and YOLO V3 saw the Dell Pro 7 14 Intel take the lead.

GPU acceleration further widened the gap between the Dell Pro 5 14 and the rest of the field. Its overall score of 398 was nearly double that of the Dell Pro 7 14 Intel (205), representing a 94% advantage, while also exceeding the Dell Pro 7 14 AMD (243) by 64% and the Dell Pro 5 16 AMD (214) by 86%. The notebook led nearly every workload, including MobileNet V3, ResNet 50, Inception V4, DeepLab V3, and YOLO V3, while maintaining a competitive REAL-ESRGAN result of 562.87 ms. Particularly impressive was ResNet 50, where the Pro 5 14 completed inference in just 2.94 ms, more than 2.5 times faster than either AMD system.

CPU Results (average time in ms)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
AI Computer Vision Overall Score	91	77	121	119
MobileNet V3	1.57 ms	1.79 ms	1.24 ms	1.09 ms
ResNet 50	13.64 ms	16.46 ms	11.57 ms	10.11 ms
Inception V4	40.43 ms	51.10 ms	34.01 ms	29.77 ms
DeepLab V3	69.73 ms	74.74 ms	37.98 ms	50.18 ms
YOLO V3	99.38 ms	122.35 ms	81.22 ms	112.64 ms
REAL-ESRGAN	4,504.35 ms	5,383.21ms	3,163.45 ms	2,884.51 ms

GPU Results (average time in ms)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
AI Computer Vision Overall Score	214	243	205	398
MobileNet V3	1.56 ms	1.17 ms	1.04 ms	0.84 ms
ResNet 50	8.76 ms	7.93 ms	6.52 ms	2.94 ms
Inception V4	22.46 ms	20.06 ms	20.72 ms	8.38 ms
DeepLab V3	38.40 ms	34.04 ms	26.53 ms	17.54 ms
YOLO V3	23.56 ms	21.92 ms	43.07 ms	19.14 ms
REAL-ESRGAN	570.35 ms	536.81 ms	1,309.49 ms	562.87 ms

UL Procyon: AI Text Generation

The Procyon AI Text Generation Benchmark streamlines AI LLM performance testing by providing a concise and consistent evaluation method. It allows for repeated testing across multiple LLM models while minimizing the complexity of large model sizes and variable factors. Developed with AI hardware leaders, it optimizes the use of local AI accelerators for more reliable and efficient performance assessments.

The Dell Pro 5 14 with the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H delivered the strongest performance in UL Procyon’s AI Text Generation benchmark, leading every workload in the test suite. Its Phi score reached 904, putting it 31% ahead of the Dell Pro 7 14 Intel (689) and more than 2.4x faster than the Dell Pro 5 16 AMD (371). The system also recorded the lowest time to first token at just 1.158 seconds and the highest token throughput at 36.95 tokens per second, resulting in the shortest overall completion time of 81.3 seconds.

The trend continued in Mistral and Llama3, where the Dell Pro 5 14 scored 716 and 708, respectively. These results represented improvements of 36 and 39 percent over the Dell Pro 7 14 Intel and more than 80% over the Dell Pro 7 14 AMD. Mistral completed in just 123.8 seconds, while Llama3 finished in 142.8 seconds, both leading the field by a comfortable margin. The notebook maintained its advantage in sustained generation workloads as well, producing 24.7 tokens per second in Mistral and 20.4 tokens per second in Llama3.

UL Procyon: AI Text Generation	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
Phi
Phi Overall Score	371	427	689	904
Phi Output Time To First Token	5.052 s	4.286 s	1.843 s	1.158 s
Phi Output Tokens Per Second	27.163 tokens/s	30.492 tokens/s	34.172 tokens/s	36.952 tokens/s
Phi Overall Duration	135.343 s	118.697 s	92.273 s	81.304 s
Mistral
Mistral Overall Score	346	389	525	716
Mistral Output Time To First Token	6.929 s	6.060 s	3.778 s	2.195 s
Mistral Output Tokens Per Second	18.174 tokens/s	20.125 tokens/s	22.843 tokens/s	24.724 tokens/s
Mistral Overall Duration	196.185 s	176.220 s	143.831 s	123.773 s
Llama3
Llama3 Overall Score	306	345	509	708
Llama3 Output Time To First Token	6.518 s	5.707s	2.992 s	1.657 s
Llama3 Output Tokens Per Second	15.050 tokens/s	16.725 tokens/s	19.104 tokens/s	20.421 tokens/s
Llama3 Overall Duration	224.176 s	199.931 s	161.290 s	142.814 s
Llama2
Llama2 Overall Score	329	367	530	641
Llama2 Output Time To First Token	11.089 s	10.307 s	5.412 s	4.082 s
Llama2 Output Tokens Per Second	8.878 tokens/s	10.260 tokens/s	11.230 tokens/s	12.397 tokens/s
Llama2 Overall Duration	381.464 s	334.648 s	278.109 s	245.572 s

UL Procyon: AI Image Generation

The Procyon AI Image Generation Benchmark provides a consistent and accurate method for measuring AI inference performance across various hardware, ranging from low-power NPUs to high-end GPUs. It includes three tests: Stable Diffusion XL (FP16) for high-end GPUs, Stable Diffusion 1.5 (FP16) for moderately powerful GPUs, and Stable Diffusion 1.5 (INT8) for low-power devices. The benchmark uses the optimal inference engine for each system, ensuring fair and comparable results.

The Dell Pro 5 14 with the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H delivered a dominant showing in UL Procyon’s AI Image Generation benchmark, posting the highest scores across every workload by a significant margin. In Stable Diffusion 1.5 (FP16), it achieved an overall score of 635, outperforming the Dell Pro 7 14 Intel’s score of 258 by 146% while more than doubling the performance of both Ryzen AI systems. Image generation completed in just 9.83 seconds per image, compared to roughly 24 to 25 seconds for the other three notebooks, giving the Pro 5 14 a substantial advantage for interactive image generation workflows.

The gap remained just as pronounced in Stable Diffusion 1.5 (INT8). Here, the Dell Pro 5 14 posted a score of 7,693, more than twice the performance of the remaining systems, which all clustered between 3,521 and 3,598. Generation time dropped to 4.06 seconds per image, while the next fastest competitor required approximately 8.7 seconds. Notably, the Intel-based Dell Pro 7 14 performed almost identically to the AMD systems in this test, highlighting just how much separation the Pro 5 14 created despite both Intel systems building on the same Core Ultra Series 3 processor family.

UL Procyon: AI Image Generation	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (FP16)
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (FP16) – Overall Score	255	247	258	635
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (FP16) – Overall Time	391.577 s	404.455 s	386.614 s	157.296 s
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (FP16) – Image Generation Speed	24.474 s/image	25.278 s/image	24.163 s/image	9.831 s/image
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (INT8)
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (INT8) – Overall Score	3,598	3,521	3,575	7,693
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (INT8) – Overall Time	69.478 s	70.985 s	69.911 s	32.495 s
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (INT8) – Image Generation Speed	8.685 s/image	8.873 s/image	8.739 s/image	4.062 s/image
Stable Diffusion XL (FP16)
Stable Diffusion XL (FP16) – Overall Score	173	177	268	646
Stable Diffusion XL (FP16) – Overall Time	3,448.478 s	3,379.388 s	2,230.563 s	928.747 s
Stable Diffusion XL (FP16) – Image Generation Speed	215.530 s/image	211.212 s/image	139.410 s/image	58.047 s/image

PCMark 10

PCMark 10 measures general system performance across everyday work such as web browsing, video conferencing, spreadsheets, writing, photo editing, and rendering. Higher scores are better.

The Dell Pro 5 14 scored 7,945 overall in PCMark 10, about 6% behind the Pro 7 14 Intel’s leading score of 8,438. The four laptops were much closer in Essentials, where the Pro 5 14 scored 10,751 and only 230 points separated the entire group. Its Productivity score of 13,821 was also close to the other systems, while Digital Content Creation showed the largest difference at 9,158. For everyday office work, the Pro 5 14 performed much like the other Dell models, but it lost some ground when PCMark moved into photo editing, rendering, and other content-creation tasks.

PCMark 10 (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
Overall	8,268	8,237	8,438	7,945
Essentials	10,870	10,783	10,981	10,751
Productivity	14,322	14,366	13,992	13,821
Digital Content Creation	9,852	9,792	10,610	9,158

Geekbench 6

Geekbench 6 measures processor performance using a mix of common tasks, with separate scores for single-core and multi-core workloads. Higher scores are better.

The Dell Pro 5 14 performed very well in Geekbench 6, scoring 2,968 in single-core and 16,874 in multi-core. Its single-core score was only 21 points behind the Pro 5 16, while the multi-core score was the highest in the group and narrowly beat the Pro 7 14 Intel. The two AMD laptops were more than 2,000 points behind in multi-core performance, giving the Core Ultra X7 368H a strong result in workloads that can use all 16 cores.

Geekbench 6 (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
Single-Core	2,989	2,888	2,862	2,968
Multi-Core	14,348	14,768	16,787	16,874

Cinebench R23 and 2024

Cinebench measures how quickly the processor can render a complex scene, with separate tests for single-core and multi-core performance. Higher scores are better.

The Cinebench results were more varied, although the Dell Pro 5 14 performed well in both single-core tests. It scored 2,010 in R23 single-core and led Cinebench 2024 single-core with 122. Its R23 multi-core score of 16,915 placed second behind the larger Pro 5 16, but its Cinebench 2024 multi-core score of 807 fell behind both AMD systems. The Core Ultra X7 368H provided excellent short-duration and single-core performance, while the Pro 5 16’s larger chassis gave it an advantage during longer multi-core rendering workloads.

Cinebench (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
R23 Single-Core	2,029	1,946	2,043	2,010
R23 Multi-Core	18,764	15,173	14,640	16,915
2024 Single-Core	119	105	116	122
2024 Multi-Core	1,055	847	683	807

7-Zip Compression

The 7-Zip benchmark measures how quickly the processor can compress and decompress data using multiple threads. Higher GIPS scores are better.

The Dell Pro 5 14 recorded 89.4 GIPS in the 7-Zip compression benchmark, placing it just 0.8 GIPS behind the Pro 7 14 AMD and 8.2 GIPS ahead of the Pro 7 14 Intel. The larger Pro 5 16 led the group at 103.9 GIPS, benefiting from its 12-core, 24-thread Ryzen processor during this heavily threaded test. Among the three 14-inch laptops, however, the Pro 5 14 was very close to the fastest result.

7-Zip (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
Total Rating (GIPS)	103.9	90.2	81.2	89.4

y-cruncher

y-cruncher measures how quickly the processor can calculate large numbers of Pi digits, placing a heavy load on the CPU and memory. Results are measured in seconds, so lower times are better.

The Dell Pro 5 14 completed the 1-billion-digit y-cruncher test in 29.405 seconds, followed by 90.719 seconds at 2.5 billion and 204.685 seconds at 5 billion. It was the faster of the two Intel systems at every test size, completing the 5-billion-digit workload nearly 36 seconds ahead of the Pro 7 14 Intel. Both AMD laptops were faster, with the difference increasing as the calculation grew larger.

y-cruncher — seconds (lower is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
1 Billion	25.160	25.199	34.775	29.405
2.5 Billion	73.320	79.393	104.586	90.719
5 Billion	163.768	177.776	240.554	204.685

Blender 5.1.1 (GPU)

The Blender benchmark measures GPU rendering performance using three different 3D scenes: Monster, Junkshop, and Classroom. Results are reported in samples per minute, so higher scores are better.

The Intel Arc B390 in the Dell Pro 5 14 produced excellent Blender GPU results, reaching 366.6 samples per minute in Monster, 312.6 in Junkshop, and 244.4 in Classroom. It led the Pro 7 14 Intel by 45% in Monster, 65% in Junkshop, and nearly 60% in Classroom. The difference was even larger against the two Radeon 890M laptops, making the Pro 5 14 the best option in this group for Blender GPU rendering.

Blender 5.1.1 GPU — samples/min (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
monster	129.8	140.9	253.6	366.6
junkshop	103.1	122.0	189.3	312.6
classroom	91.1	105.6	153.0	244.4

V-Ray and LuxMark

LuxMark measures GPU compute performance by rendering complex scenes through OpenCL while V-Ray GPU measures how quickly the graphics processor can render a scene using the V-Ray engine. Higher scores are better.

The Dell Pro 5 14 also led all three GPU compute tests, with 3,287 in LuxMark Hall, 1,585 in LuxMark Food, and 919 vpaths in V-Ray GPU. Its LuxMark scores were far ahead of the other laptops, including a Hall result that was more than 50% higher than the Pro 7 14 Intel. V-Ray produced a smaller gap between the four systems, although the Pro 5 14 still finished 58 vpaths ahead of the Pro 5 16. These results add to the strong Blender numbers and give the Arc B390 a considerable advantage in GPU rendering and compute work.

GPU Compute (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
LuxMark — Hall	2,125	2,042	2,168	3,287
LuxMark — Food	982	1,050	880	1,585
V-Ray GPU (vpaths)	861	784	775	919

SPECviewperf 15

SPECviewperf 15 measures graphics performance using viewsets based on professional applications for CAD, 3D modeling, rendering, engineering, and medical visualization. Higher scores are better, although performance can vary considerably between applications and graphics architectures.

The Dell Pro 5 14 produced a more application-dependent set of results in SPECviewperf 15. Its Arc B390 led Blender (21.19), Enscape (14.28), Maya (82.42), and Unreal Engine (38.77), with especially large gains in Maya and Enscape. The two Radeon 890M systems were faster in several engineering and scientific viewsets, including CATIA (10.27), Creo (32.53), Energy (10.78), Medical (22.96), and SolidWorks (23.60). The Pro 5 14 performed best in the rendering and content-creation applications represented here, while the AMD laptops were faster in several CAD and technical workloads.

SPECviewperf 15 (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
3dsmax-08	23.21	24.69	9.58	20.21
blender-01	19.89	20.85	9.11	21.19
catia-07	20.16	21.21	5.27	10.27
creo-04	44.27	45.70	18.27	32.53
energy-04	25.39	25.08	3.68	10.78
enscape-01	8.02	8.29	6.22	14.28
maya-07	48.67	53.64	49.54	82.42
medical-04	65.45	60.50	9.91	22.96
snx-05	51.67	51.84	37.74	46.22
solidworks-08	33.12	32.02	11.86	23.60
unreal_engine-01	26.61	26.29	21.36	38.77

SPECworkstation 4

SPECworkstation 4 measures workstation performance across CPU, graphics, storage, AI, product design, engineering, financial services, and other professional workloads. Higher scores are better, while DNF means the system did not complete every workload required for that category.

The Dell Pro 5 14 led the CPU (1.19), Storage (1.76), Product Design (1.64), and Productivity and Development (1.10) categories in SPECworkstation 4. Its Graphics score (1.68) placed it well ahead of the Pro 7 14 Intel but behind both Radeon 890M systems. The Pro 5 14 also tied the Pro 5 16 in Life Sciences (1.34) and came within 0.01 of it in AI and Machine Learning (1.36). The Media and Entertainment workload (DNF) did not finish on the Pro 5 14 or either AMD system.

SPECworkstation 4 (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
CPU (subsystem)	1.09	1.00	1.08	1.19
Graphics (subsystem)	2.36	2.41	0.82	1.68
Storage (subsystem)	0.89	0.55	1.68	1.76
AI & Machine Learning	1.37	1.29	1.18	1.36
Energy	1.24	1.13	0.90	1.18
Financial Services	0.98	0.88	0.78	0.78
Life Sciences	1.34	1.08	1.04	1.34
Media & Entertainment	DNF	DNF	1.16	DNF
Product Design	1.34	1.18	1.41	1.64
Productivity & Development	0.78	0.72	1.04	1.10

Storage Performance

3DMark Storage measures how an SSD performs during gaming-related tasks such as loading games, installing software, saving progress, and moving game files. Blackmagic Disk Speed Test measures an SSD’s sequential read and write speeds using large media files.

The 1TB SK hynix PCB01 Gen5 SSD in the Dell Pro 5 14 reached 8,609.6MB/s read and 8,747.3MB/s write in Blackmagic Disk. It had the fastest read speed in the group, while its write result was only 187.2MB/s behind the Pro 7 14 Intel, which uses the same drive. The Pro 5 14 also scored 3,144 in 3DMark Storage, placing just behind the other Intel model and well ahead of both AMD laptops. Buyers working with large files or storage-heavy applications should see a substantial improvement over the slower drives installed in the two AMD systems.

Storage (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
3DMark Storage (score)	2,477	894	3,259	3,144
Blackmagic Disk — Read (MB/s)	4,758.0	3,103.4	8,398.6	8,609.6
Blackmagic Disk — Write (MB/s)	5,166.5	4,034.3	8,934.5	8,747.3

Battery Life

The PCMark 10 Modern Office battery test repeatedly runs common office tasks until the battery reaches the test’s cutoff point. Longer runtimes are better.

The Dell Pro 5 14 lasted 26 hours and 48 minutes in the PCMark 10 Modern Office battery test, the longest runtime in the group. It ran 30 minutes longer than the Pro 7 14 Intel, more than seven hours longer than the Pro 7 14 AMD, and over 11 hours longer than the Pro 5 16. The test was run in Balanced mode at 50% display brightness, giving the 70Wh battery and low-power WUXGA display an advantage during office use. Actual runtime will vary with workload and brightness, but the result gives the Pro 5 14 plenty of battery life for long workdays.

Battery — PCMark 10 Modern Office (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
Runtime	15h 22m	19h 28m	26h 18m	26h 48m

Conclusion

Among the four Dell laptops we tested, the Pro 5 14 Intel produced some of the most impressive results. Its Core Ultra X7 368H led Geekbench 6 multi-core and Cinebench 2024 single-core, while the Arc B390 was the fastest GPU in Blender, LuxMark, and V-Ray. Dell also equipped our build with a quick SK hynix Gen5 SSD, and its 26-hour, 48-minute battery result was the longest of the group.

Though the larger Pro 5 16 AMD was faster during several sustained CPU workloads, both Radeon 890M systems performed better in many engineering and CAD viewsets. The Pro 5 14 was much stronger in Blender, Enscape, Maya, Unreal Engine, and GPU compute tests, making it better suited to users whose applications benefit from Intel’s latest Arc graphics. Its 64GB LPCAMM2 module can also be replaced or upgraded, unlike the soldered memory used in many thin business laptops.

Our review build costs $5,492, placing it very close to the Pro 7 14 Intel and well above the larger Pro 5 16 AMD. The final choice will depend on which features a company values most, since this configuration combines excellent battery life, fast Gen5 storage, replaceable memory, Intel vPro, ControlVault 3+, and three years of next-business-day onsite support. Businesses looking for a compact Intel laptop with strong graphics performance and better serviceability should find plenty to like here, while those running long CPU renders or AMD-favored CAD software may prefer one of the Ryzen configurations.

Product Page: Dell Pro 5 14

The post Dell Pro 5 14 Intel Review: Core Ultra X7 368H and Arc B390 Graphics in a 14-Inch Business Laptop appeared first on StorageReview.com.

KIOXIA has introduced the NX1 Series, a new family of PCIe 5.0 NVMe data center SSDs built around the E1.S form factor. Capacities range from 1.92 TB to 15.36 TB, with read-intensive endurance rated at 1 DWPD, while cooling options include both air and direct liquid cooling. The drives succeed the XD Series and are designed for GPU-enabled AI servers and hyperscale infrastructure where dense storage configurations require more attention to heat removal.

KIOXIA NX1 Series Specifications

Specification	Details
Form factor and cooling	Available in E1.S 9.5 mm (supports direct liquid cooling and air cooling) and E1.S 15 mm form factor (supports air cooling)
Capacity and endurance	Capacities ranging from 1.92 TB to 15.36 TB with read-intensive endurance (1 DWPD)
Standards and features	Compliant with PCIe 5.0, NVMe 2.0, and Open Compute Project (OCP) Datacenter NVMe SSD 2.6 specifications, as well as NVMe Flexible Data Placement (FDP) support
Flash memory	Built with KIOXIA BiCS FLASH generation 8 TLC memory technology utilizing CMOS directly Bonded to Array (CBA) architecture
Security	Optional TCG Opal-compliant Self-Encrypting Drive (SED) security model

 

Direct liquid cooling is available on the 9.5 mm E1.S model, which can also use air cooling, while the thicker 15 mm version supports air cooling only. The NX1 is KIOXIA’s first SSD with direct liquid cooling support and can be used in cold-plate-compatible configurations, allowing heat to be removed from the drive in dense, accelerator-rich server designs.

KIOXIA built the NX1 around a new in-house controller architecture and BiCS FLASH generation 8 TLC memory using its CMOS directly Bonded to Array (CBA) technology. Platform support includes PCIe 5.0, NVMe 2.0, the Open Compute Project Datacenter NVMe SSD 2.6 specification, and NVMe Flexible Data Placement.

Compared with the previous-generation KIOXIA XD8 Series, the NX1 delivers up to 38% higher sequential write performance and up to 20% higher random write performance. As always, those figures can vary depending on the host system, drivers, operating system, software, and read/write conditions.

Security is available through an optional TCG Opal-compliant Self-Encrypting Drive model. This version does not support every TCG Opal SSC feature and will not be offered in every country due to local regulations.

The KIOXIA NX1 Series is currently being sampled by select hyperscale customers. KIOXIA will also exhibit the drives at FMS: the Future of Memory and Storage in Santa Clara, California, from August 4 through August 6.

The post KIOXIA’s First Liquid-Cooled SSD Arrives in the E1.S NX1 Series appeared first on StorageReview.com.

At 2.80 pounds and 16.45 millimeters at its thickest point, the Dell Pro 7 14 Intel is one of the thinnest laptops Dell has put in its commercial Pro line, up to 17 percent slimmer than the 14-inch clamshell generation it replaces. The shell pairs an aluminum top cover and palm rest with a magnesium bottom door, and inside Dell fits a Series 3 Intel Core Ultra 7 366H with Intel vPro, a 16-core chip with a 50 TOPS NPU, alongside 64GB of LPDDR5x-8533 memory and a 1 TB PCIe Gen5 SSD. It is also the most expensive machine in this four-laptop test group at $5,600 as configured, a Dell.com single-unit price that fleet buyers will typically negotiate down.

This laptop posted the best overall PCMark 10 score in the group at 8,438, took the top Digital Content Creation subscore, ran for 26 hours and 18 minutes in our Modern Office battery test, and its SK hynix Gen5 SSD led 3DMark Storage with a score of 3,259 and read at nearly 8.4 GB/s. It recorded the lowest sustained multi-core results of the four in Cinebench and 7-Zip, and its integrated Intel Graphics finished behind the Radeon 890M in the Dell Pro 7 14 AMD and Dell Pro 5 16 AMD across most SPECviewperf viewsets. The sharpest comparison comes from within the family: the nominally lower-tier Pro 5 14 Intel carries a higher-tier Core Ultra X7 368H and Arc B390 graphics for $108 less, and it wins most of the GPU and AI tests.

The case for the Pro 7 14 Intel rests on everything wrapped around those numbers. Intel vPro brings AMT out-of-band management, Hardware Shield, and Threat Detection Technology, layered under Dell SafeBIOS, quantum-resistant BIOS verification, and Trusted Device, with 36 months of ProSupport Next Business Day Onsite service and durability testing beyond standard MIL-STD requirements. Executives and mobile professionals who count grams and unplugged hours more than render minutes are the target audience, and this review examines whether the lightest Pro earns its premium over its siblings.

Design and Build

The Dell Pro 7 14 Intel uses the same compact chassis as the AMD model, pairing an aluminum top cover and palm rest with a lightweight magnesium bottom door. Dell calls it the thinnest 14-inch notebook in its current Pro lineup, measuring 10.3 mm at the front and up to 16.45 mm at its thickest point. It is also up to 17% thinner than the previous 14-inch clamshell generation.

The dark gray finish and simple shape fit the business focus, but the metal construction keeps it from feeling flimsy. Dell says the chassis has been tested beyond standard MIL-STD requirements, which is useful for a system likely to spend much of its time being carried between offices, meeting rooms, and airports.

Display and Input

Our review unit has a 14-inch WUXGA display with a 1920 x 1200 resolution and a taller 16:10 aspect ratio. The non-touch panel supports a variable refresh rate from 1 to 120 Hz, reaches 500 nits, covers 100% of the sRGB color space, and uses an anti-glare finish. It is also one of Dell’s super-low-power panels, which likely helped the system last 26 hours and 18 minutes in our PCMark 10 Modern Office battery test shown below.

Dell includes ComfortView Plus to reduce blue-light output without applying the heavy yellow tint associated with some software filters. Text and interface elements remain sharp at this resolution, while the 120 Hz maximum refresh rate makes scrolling and general navigation feel smoother than on a standard 60 Hz business display.

The Mini-LED backlit keyboard is spill-resistant and includes a dedicated AI key. The layout uses the available width well, with full-sized primary keys and no numeric keypad taking up space on the right. A large, precision touchpad sits below it, providing enough space for multi-finger gestures.

Above the display is an 8MP RGB HDR and infrared camera capable of recording at 1440p and 30 frames per second. It supports Windows Hello facial recognition, presence detection, and temporal noise reduction, and includes a physical shutter for privacy.

Ports and Connectivity

Port selection is good for a laptop this thin. The left side has two Thunderbolt 4 Type-C ports supporting USB4 at up to 40Gbps, DisplayPort 2.1, and Power Delivery. HDMI 2.1 and a USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A port with PowerShare are also located on this side.

Our configuration adds a third USB Type-C port on the right. This connection supports USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 at up to 20Gbps, DisplayPort 1.4, and Power Delivery. Dell offers it as an alternative to a second USB Type-A port with PowerShare, so the exact layout depends on the selected configuration. The right side also includes the headset jack, wedge-shaped security slot, and an optional nano-SIM tray, while an optional smart-card reader slot is located on the left on supported configurations.

Wireless connectivity is provided by an Intel Wi-Fi 7 BE211 2×2 adapter, qualified against Bluetooth Core 6.0. The laptop charges through USB-C using the included 65W adapter, which can be connected to either side. Its 70Wh battery supports ExpressCharge and ExpressCharge Boost, though Dell notes both fast-charging modes require at least a 100W adapter, so the bundled 65W unit charges at standard speed.

Security and Manageability

The main difference between this system and the otherwise similar Pro 7 14 AMD is Intel vPro. Intel Active Management Technology provides out-of-band access that can allow IT staff to diagnose, configure, and support a system even when its operating system is unavailable. That can be particularly valuable for companies managing laptops across multiple offices or supporting employees working remotely.

Intel Hardware Shield adds protections below the operating system, while Threat Detection Technology can help security software identify certain attacks. Intel’s Stable IT Platform Program also provides businesses with a more predictable hardware and driver platform for large-scale deployments.

Dell adds its own security and management features through SafeBIOS, Trusted Device, and quantum-resistant BIOS verification. Our configuration includes a fingerprint reader integrated into the power button, an infrared camera for Windows Hello, a physical camera shutter, and TPM 2.0 certified to FIPS 140-3 requirements.

Dell Management Portal can work with Microsoft Intune to manage Dell-specific settings from an existing cloud-management environment. Our review configuration also includes 36 months of ProSupport with Next Business Day Onsite service following remote diagnosis.

Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel) Specifications

Specification	Dell Pro 7 14 (P714260)
Platform Overview
Processor	Series 3 Intel Core Ultra 7 366H with Intel vPro 16 cores, up to 4.8 GHz 50 TOPS NPU (Copilot+ PC)
Graphics	Intel Graphics (integrated, 4 Xe cores)
Operating System	Windows 11 Pro (Copilot+ PC)
Memory and Storage
Memory	64 GB LPDDR5x-8533, dual-channel, onboard
Storage	1 TB Performance SSD, PCIe Gen5, SED Ready (SK hynix PCB01)
Display and Camera
Display	14″ WUXGA (1920 x 1200), non-touch, VRR 1 to 120 Hz 500 nits, 100% sRGB, ComfortView Plus, anti-glare, super-low-power
Camera	8 MP RGB HDR + IR, 1440p at 30 fps Presence Detection, Temporal Noise Reduction, Camera Shutter
Connectivity and Input
Wireless	Intel Wi-Fi 7 BE211, 2×2, Bluetooth Core 6.0
Keyboard	Mini-LED backlit, AI hotkey, spill resistant, US English
Ports	2x Thunderbolt 4/USB4 (40Gbps) Type-C with Power Delivery and DisplayPort 2.1 1x USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 (20Gbps) Type-C with Power Delivery and DisplayPort 1.4 (as configured; alternative is a second USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A with PowerShare) 1x USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A with PowerShare 1x HDMI 2.1 1x global headset port 1x wedge-shaped lock slot Optional nano-SIM tray and smart-card reader slot
Security and Manageability
Security	Fingerprint reader in power button (Windows Hello) TPM 2.0 FIPS 140-3 / TCG Certified Quantum-resistant BIOS verification, camera shutter
Manageability	Intel vPro (AMT, Hardware Shield, TDT, SIPP) Dell SafeBIOS, Trusted Device, Dell Management Portal, Intune
Power and Physical
Battery	3-cell, 70 Wh, ExpressCharge / ExpressCharge Boost
Power Adapter	65 W USB-C
Chassis	Aluminum top cover and palmrest, magnesium bottom cover From 2.80 lb; 10.3 to 16.45 mm thick
Certifications, Warranty and Pricing
Certifications	ENERGY STAR, EPEAT Gold with Climate+, TCO Certified Tested beyond standard MIL-STD requirements
Service	Dell ProSupport, Next Business Day Onsite, 36 months
Base Price	$2,359
Price as Tested	$5,600 (Dell.com single-unit, no discount)

Performance

To see how the Dell Pro 7 14 Intel fits within Dell’s current commercial lineup, we tested it alongside the Pro 5 14 Intel and both AMD configurations. All four laptops ran our standard power profile across general productivity, CPU rendering, GPU compute, professional visualization, storage, AI, and battery workloads.

Although the two Intel laptops are built on the same Series 3 Core Ultra platform, they are not equals: the Pro 7 14’s Core Ultra 7 366H and standard Intel Graphics give up ground to the Pro 5 14’s higher-tier X7 368H and Arc B390 in most GPU and AI tests. Comparisons with the AMD pair split by workload, with the Intel machines ahead in Blender GPU rendering and AI text generation, while the Radeon 890M systems lead most SPECviewperf CAD viewsets.

Test Systems

Specification	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel)
CPU	Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 (12C/24T)	Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 (12C/24T)	Core Ultra 7 366H (16C)	Core Ultra X7 368H (16C)
GPU	Radeon 890M	Radeon 890M	Intel Graphics	Intel Arc B390
Memory	64 GB DDR5-5600	64 GB LPDDR5x-8533	64 GB LPDDR5x-8533	64 GB LPCAMM2-8533
Storage	SanDisk PC SN5100S 1 TB	Samsung BM9C1a 1 TB	SK hynix PCB01 1 TB	SK hynix PCB01 1 TB
Display	16″ WQXGA	14″ WUXGA	14″ WUXGA	14″ WUXGA
Price as Tested	$4,648	$5,377	$5,600	$5,492

UL Procyon: AI Computer Vision

The Procyon AI Computer Vision Benchmark measures AI inference performance across CPUs, GPUs, and dedicated accelerators using a range of state-of-the-art neural networks. It evaluates tasks such as image classification, object detection, segmentation, and super-resolution using models including MobileNet V3, Inception V4, YOLO V3, DeepLab V3, Real ESRGAN, and ResNet 50. Tests are run on multiple inference engines, including NVIDIA TensorRT, Intel OpenVINO, Qualcomm SNPE, Microsoft Windows ML, and Apple Core ML, providing a broad view of hardware and software efficiency. Results are reported for float- and integer-optimized models, providing a consistent, practical measure of machine vision performance for professional workloads.

The Dell Pro 7 14 Intel performed much better on the CPU side of the AI Computer Vision benchmark, with an overall score of 121 that led the group by a narrow margin. It also posted the fastest results in DeepLab V3 and YOLO V3, though the Pro 5 14 Intel was quicker in MobileNet V3, ResNet 50, Inception V4, and REAL-ESRGAN. GPU performance was less competitive, with an overall score of 205, placing it behind both Radeon 890M systems and well below the Pro 5 14 Intel’s score of 398. The Pro 7 14 Intel did lead the AMD laptops in several individual GPU workloads, but its slow REAL-ESRGAN result of 1,309.49 ms pulled down the overall score.

CPU Results (average time in ms)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
AI Computer Vision Overall Score	91	77	121	119
MobileNet V3	1.57 ms	1.79 ms	1.24 ms	1.09 ms
ResNet 50	13.64 ms	16.46 ms	11.57 ms	10.11 ms
Inception V4	40.43 ms	51.10 ms	34.01 ms	29.77 ms
DeepLab V3	69.73 ms	74.74 ms	37.98 ms	50.18 ms
YOLO V3	99.38 ms	122.35 ms	81.22 ms	112.64 ms
REAL-ESRGAN	4,504.35 ms	5,383.21 ms	3,163.45 ms	2,884.51 ms

GPU Results (average time in ms)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
AI Computer Vision Overall Score	214	243	205	398
MobileNet V3	1.56 ms	1.17 ms	1.04 ms	0.84 ms
ResNet 50	8.76 ms	7.93 ms	6.52 ms	2.94 ms
Inception V4	22.46 ms	20.06 ms	20.72 ms	8.38 ms
DeepLab V3	38.40 ms	34.04 ms	26.53 ms	17.54 ms
YOLO V3	23.56 ms	21.92 ms	43.07 ms	19.14 ms
REAL-ESRGAN	570.35 ms	536.81 ms	1,309.49 ms	562.87 ms

UL Procyon: AI Text Generation

The Procyon AI Text Generation Benchmark streamlines LLM performance testing by providing a concise, consistent evaluation method. It enables repeated testing across multiple LLM models while minimizing the complexity of large models and the number of variables. Developed with AI hardware leaders, it optimizes the use of local AI accelerators to deliver more reliable, efficient performance assessments.

The Dell Pro 7 14 Intel finished comfortably ahead of both AMD systems across all four AI Text Generation workloads, with scores of 689 on Phi, 525 on Mistral, 509 on Llama3, and 530 on Llama2. It also produced lower time-to-first-token results and higher token-generation rates throughout the test. The Pro 5 14 Intel was faster across all workloads, with its higher-tier processor leading by about 21% in Llama2 and 39% in Llama3. That said, the Pro 7 14 Intel provided a noticeable improvement over the AMD models for local LLM workloads.

UL Procyon: AI Text Generation	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
Phi
Phi Overall Score	371	427	689	904
Phi Output Time To First Token	5.052 s	4.286 s	1.843 s	1.158 s
Phi Output Tokens Per Second	27.163 tokens/s	30.492 tokens/s	34.172 tokens/s	36.952 tokens/s
Phi Overall Duration	135.343 s	118.697 s	92.273 s	81.304 s
Mistral
Mistral Overall Score	346	389	525	716
Mistral Output Time To First Token	6.929 s	6.060 s	3.778 s	2.195 s
Mistral Output Tokens Per Second	18.174 tokens/s	20.125 tokens/s	22.843 tokens/s	24.724 tokens/s
Mistral Overall Duration	196.185 s	176.220 s	143.831 s	123.773 s
Llama3
Llama3 Overall Score	306	345	509	708
Llama3 Output Time To First Token	6.518 s	5.707 s	2.992 s	1.657 s
Llama3 Output Tokens Per Second	15.050 tokens/s	16.725 tokens/s	19.104 tokens/s	20.421 tokens/s
Llama3 Overall Duration	224.176 s	199.931 s	161.290 s	142.814 s
Llama2
Llama2 Overall Score	329	367	530	641
Llama2 Output Time To First Token	11.089 s	10.307 s	5.412 s	4.082 s
Llama2 Output Tokens Per Second	8.878 tokens/s	10.260 tokens/s	11.230 tokens/s	12.397 tokens/s
Llama2 Overall Duration	381.464 s	334.648 s	278.109 s	245.572 s

UL Procyon: AI Image Generation

The Procyon AI Image Generation Benchmark provides a consistent and accurate method for measuring AI inference performance across a range of hardware, from low-power NPUs to high-end GPUs. It includes three tests: Stable Diffusion XL (FP16) for high-end GPUs, Stable Diffusion 1.5 (FP16) for moderately powerful GPUs, and Stable Diffusion 1.5 (INT8) for low-power devices. The benchmark uses the optimal inference engine for each system, ensuring fair and comparable results.

The Dell Pro 7 14 Intel was placed near the two AMD systems in the Stable Diffusion 1.5 tests, scoring 258 in FP16 and 3,575 in INT8. Those results were only slightly ahead of or behind the AMD laptops, with image-generation times separated by about a second or less in both workloads. It pulled further ahead in Stable Diffusion XL, where its score of 268 was about 51% higher than the Pro 7 14 AMD’s 177, and its 139.410-second image-generation time was considerably faster. The Pro 5 14 Intel still led every test by a wide margin, making the difference between the two Intel graphics configurations especially noticeable here.

UL Procyon: AI Image Generation	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (FP16)
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (FP16) – Overall Score	255	247	258	635
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (FP16) – Overall Time	391.577 s	404.455 s	386.614 s	157.296 s
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (FP16) – Image Generation Speed	24.474 s/image	25.278 s/image	24.163 s/image	9.831 s/image
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (INT8)
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (INT8) – Overall Score	3,598	3,521	3,575	7,693
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (INT8) – Overall Time	69.478 s	70.985 s	69.911 s	32.495 s
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (INT8) – Image Generation Speed	8.685 s/image	8.873 s/image	8.739 s/image	4.062 s/image
Stable Diffusion XL (FP16)
Stable Diffusion XL (FP16) – Overall Score	173	177	268	646
Stable Diffusion XL (FP16) – Overall Time	3,448.478 s	3,379.388 s	2,230.563 s	928.747 s
Stable Diffusion XL (FP16) – Image Generation Speed	215.530 s/image	211.212 s/image	139.410 s/image	58.047 s/image

PCMark 10

PCMark 10 measures general system performance across everyday work such as web browsing, video conferencing, spreadsheets, writing, photo editing, and rendering. Higher scores are better.

The Dell Pro 7 14 Intel posted the highest overall PCMark 10 score of the group at 8,438, placing it about 2% ahead of both AMD systems and 6% ahead of the Pro 5 14 Intel. It also led the Essentials test with 10,981 and took first place in Digital Content Creation with 10,610, holding an 8% advantage over the next-fastest system. Its Productivity score of 13,992 was slightly behind the AMD laptops, but the overall result shows that it delivers excellent responsiveness across common office and content-creation tasks.

PCMark 10 (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
Overall	8,268	8,237	8,438	7,945
Essentials	10,870	10,783	10,981	10,751
Productivity	14,322	14,366	13,992	13,821
Digital Content Creation	9,852	9,792	10,610	9,158

Geekbench 6

Geekbench 6 measures processor performance using a mix of common tasks, with separate scores for single-core and multi-core workloads. Higher scores are better.

The Dell Pro 7 14 Intel scored 2,862 in Geekbench 6 single-core, placing it last in the group but only about 4% behind the leading Pro 5 16 AMD. Its multi-core score of 16,787 was far more competitive, finishing within 1% of the Pro 5 14 Intel and around 14% ahead of both AMD systems. This was one of the stronger multi-core results for the Pro 7 14 Intel, showing that its Core Ultra 7 366H can perform well in shorter, mixed workloads, even though it falls behind in longer, sustained tests.

Geekbench 6 (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
Single-Core	2,989	2,888	2,862	2,968
Multi-Core	14,348	14,768	16,787	16,874

Cinebench R23 and 2024

Cinebench measures how quickly the processor can render a complex scene, with separate tests for single-core and multi-core performance. Higher scores are better.

The Dell Pro 7 14 Intel delivered strong single-core performance in Cinebench R23, leading the group with a score of 2,043, but its multi-core score of 14,640 was the lowest of the four systems. The same pattern carried over to Cinebench 2024, where its single-core score of 116 was competitive, but its multi-core score of 683 placed it well behind the other laptops. The Pro 5 14 Intel finished about 16% ahead in R23 multi-core and 18% ahead in Cinebench 2024 multi-core, while the larger Pro 5 16 AMD extended those leads to 28% and 54%, respectively.

Cinebench (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
R23 Single-Core	2,029	1,946	2,043	2,010
R23 Multi-Core	18,764	15,173	14,640	16,915
2024 Single-Core	119	105	116	122
2024 Multi-Core	1,055	847	683	807

7-Zip Compression

The 7-Zip benchmark measures how quickly the processor can compress and decompress data using multiple threads. Higher GIPS scores are better.

The Dell Pro 7 14 Intel recorded a total rating of 81.2 GIPS in the 7-Zip benchmark, placing it last among the four systems. It trailed the Pro 5 14 Intel by about 9%, the Pro 7 14 AMD by 10%, and the larger Pro 5 16 AMD by 22%. The result follows the same trend seen in Cinebench, with the thin chassis limiting the Core Ultra 7 366H during workloads that keep all of its cores busy for an extended period.

7-Zip (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
Total Rating (GIPS)	103.9	90.2	81.2	89.4

y-cruncher

y-cruncher measures how quickly the processor can calculate large numbers of Pi digits, placing a heavy load on the CPU and memory. Results are measured in seconds, so lower times are better.

The Dell Pro 7 14 Intel was the slowest system across all three y-cruncher workloads, completing the 1-billion-digit calculation in 34.775 seconds, the 2.5-billion-digit test in 104.586 seconds, and the 5-billion-digit test in 240.554 seconds. The Pro 5 14 Intel was around 15% faster throughout, while the two Ryzen systems extended their advantage as the workload increased. At 5 billion digits, the Pro 5 16 AMD completed the calculation roughly 32% faster, which shows the difference between the Pro 7 14’s portable design and the larger AMD system’s sustained CPU performance.

y-cruncher — seconds (lower is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
1 Billion	25.160	25.199	34.775	29.405
2.5 Billion	73.320	79.393	104.586	90.719
5 Billion	163.768	177.776	240.554	204.685

Blender 5.1.1 (GPU)

The Blender benchmark measures GPU rendering performance using three different 3D scenes: Monster, Junkshop, and Classroom. Results are reported in samples per minute, so higher scores are better.

The Dell Pro 7 14 Intel performed well in Blender compared with the Radeon 890M systems, reaching 253.6 samples per minute in Monster, 189.3 in Junkshop, and 153.0 in Classroom. Those results placed it around 45% to 80% ahead of the Pro 7 14 AMD, depending on the scene. The Pro 5 14 Intel’s Arc B390 was considerably faster still, leading the Pro 7 14 Intel by 45% in Monster, 65% in Junkshop, and 60% in Classroom. This gives the Pro 7 14 Intel a solid advantage over the AMD laptops for Blender GPU rendering, though it cannot match the higher-tier Intel graphics configuration.

Blender 5.1.1 GPU — samples/min (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
Monster	129.8	140.9	253.6	366.6
Junkshop	103.1	122.0	189.3	312.6
Classroom	91.1	105.6	153.0	244.4

V-Ray and LuxMark

LuxMark measures GPU compute performance by rendering complex scenes through OpenCL, while V-Ray GPU measures how quickly the graphics processor can render a scene using the V-Ray engine. Higher scores are better.

The Dell Pro 7 14 Intel produced mixed results in V-Ray and LuxMark. Its LuxMark Hall score of 2,168 was the best outside the Pro 5 14 Intel and narrowly ahead of both AMD systems, but its Food score of 880 placed it last. The same was true in V-Ray, where its result of 775 vpaths was slightly behind the Pro 7 14 AMD and around 16% below the Pro 5 14 Intel. Overall, its standard Intel Graphics provided enough compute performance to compete with the Radeon 890M in some workloads, but results varied considerably by application.

GPU Compute (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
LuxMark — Hall	2,125	2,042	2,168	3,287
LuxMark — Food	982	1,050	880	1,585
V-Ray GPU (vpaths)	861	784	775	919

SPECviewperf 15

SPECviewperf 15 measures graphics performance using viewsets derived from professional applications in CAD, 3D modeling, rendering, engineering, and medical visualization. Higher scores are better, although performance can vary considerably between applications and graphics architectures.

The Dell Pro 7 14 Intel struggled throughout SPECviewperf 15, posting the lowest result in most of the professional visualization viewsets. The largest gaps appeared in CAD-focused tests such as CATIA, Creo, Energy, Siemens NX, and SolidWorks, where the Radeon 890M systems were often several times faster. It was more competitive in Enscape, Maya, and Unreal Engine, but the Pro 5 14 Intel also finished well ahead in those tests. These results make the Pro 7 14 Intel not a great fit for users who regularly work in CAD, engineering, or other GPU-heavy professional applications.

SPECviewperf 15 (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
3dsmax-08	23.21	24.69	9.58	20.21
blender-01	19.89	20.85	9.11	21.19
catia-07	20.16	21.21	5.27	10.27
creo-04	44.27	45.70	18.27	32.53
energy-04	25.39	25.08	3.68	10.78
enscape-01	8.02	8.29	6.22	14.28
maya-07	48.67	53.64	49.54	82.42
medical-04	65.45	60.50	9.91	22.96
snx-05	51.67	51.84	37.74	46.22
solidworks-08	33.12	32.02	11.86	23.60
unreal_engine-01	26.61	26.29	21.36	38.77

SPECworkstation 4

SPECworkstation 4 measures workstation performance across CPU, graphics, storage, AI, product design, engineering, financial services, and other professional workloads. Higher scores are better, while DNF means the system did not complete every workload required for that category.

The Dell Pro 7 14 Intel produced a more balanced set of results in SPECworkstation 4, scoring 1.08 in the CPU subsystem and 1.68 in storage, finishing close to or ahead of most of the group. Graphics was its weakest area at 0.82, well behind both Radeon 890M systems and roughly half the score of the Pro 5 14 Intel. It also placed last in AI and Machine Learning, Energy, and Life Sciences, and tied the Pro 5 14 at the bottom of Financial Services, though it was the only system in the group to complete the Media and Entertainment workload, posting a 1.16 there. The strong storage score helped, but weaker graphics performance limited it across many broader workstation workloads.

SPECworkstation 4 (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
CPU (subsystem)	1.09	1.00	1.08	1.19
Graphics (subsystem)	2.36	2.41	0.82	1.68
Storage (subsystem)	0.89	0.55	1.68	1.76
AI & Machine Learning	1.37	1.29	1.18	1.36
Energy	1.24	1.13	0.90	1.18
Financial Services	0.98	0.88	0.78	0.78
Life Sciences	1.34	1.08	1.04	1.34
Media & Entertainment	DNF	DNF	1.16	DNF
Product Design	1.34	1.18	1.41	1.64
Productivity & Development	0.78	0.72	1.04	1.10

Storage Performance

3DMark Storage measures how an SSD performs during gaming-related tasks such as loading games, installing software, saving progress, and moving game files. Blackmagic Disk Speed Test measures an SSD’s sequential read and write speeds using large media files.

The SK hynix PCB01 in the Dell Pro 7 14 Intel delivered some of the strongest storage results in the group, leading 3DMark Storage with a score of 3,259. It also reached 8,398.6 MB/s read and 8,934.5 MB/s write in the Blackmagic Disk Speed Test, giving it the fastest write result and placing it just behind the Pro 5 14 Intel in sequential reads. Compared with the Pro 7 14 AMD, the Intel model was more than three times faster in 3DMark Storage and more than doubled its sequential write speed.

Storage (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
3DMark Storage (score)	2,477	894	3,259	3,144
Blackmagic Disk — Read (MB/s)	4,758.0	3,103.4	8,398.6	8,609.6
Blackmagic Disk — Write (MB/s)	5,166.5	4,034.3	8,934.5	8,747.3

Battery Life

The PCMark 10 Modern Office battery test repeatedly runs common office tasks until the battery reaches the test’s cutoff point. Longer runtimes are better.

The Dell Pro 7 14 Intel lasted 26 hours and 18 minutes in the PCMark 10 Modern Office battery test, only 30 minutes behind the Pro 5 14 Intel and nearly seven hours longer than the Pro 7 14 AMD. It also outlasted the larger Pro 5 16 AMD by almost 11 hours. This was one of the best results in the review and a major advantage for anyone who regularly works away from a power outlet.

Battery — PCMark 10 Modern Office (higher is better)	Dell Pro 5 16 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 12C)	Dell Pro 7 14 (Intel Core Ultra 7 366H 16C)	Dell Pro 5 14 (Intel Core Ultra X7 368H 16C)
Runtime	15h 22m	19h 28m	26h 18m	26h 48m

Conclusion

The Dell Pro 7 14 Intel is the laptop Dell built for the road, and judged on those terms, it delivers. It shares the thinnest chassis in Dell’s commercial line with its AMD twin at 2.80 pounds and 16.45 mm, ran 26 hours and 18 minutes in PCMark 10 Modern Office, nearly seven hours longer than that twin, and posted the best overall PCMark 10 score of the group at 8,438 with the top Digital Content Creation subscore. Its Gen5 SSD led 3DMark Storage at 3,259 and read at nearly 8.4GB/s, and Intel vPro brings AMT out-of-band access, Hardware Shield, Threat Detection Technology, and SIPP, a management depth the AMD pair cannot match, though the Pro 5 14 shares it. For a workday of documents, browsers, video calls, and airports, this is the strongest machine in the group.

Sustained performance is the main trade-off, with the thin chassis and Core Ultra 7 366H yielding the lowest multi-core scores among the four systems in Cinebench and 7-Zip. Its integrated Intel Graphics also fell well behind the Radeon 890M systems in most SPECviewperf CAD tests. The Pro 5 14 Intel makes the comparison even harder, since it costs $108 less as configured while offering the higher-tier Core Ultra X7 368H and Arc B390 graphics, giving it a large advantage in most GPU and local AI workloads. The Pro 5 16 AMD is also $952 less and is the stronger option for long CPU-heavy workloads, though it is larger, heavier, and lasts considerably less time on battery.

That leaves the Pro 7 14 Intel best suited to fleets that rank mobility, endurance, and manageability ahead of performance per dollar. Buyers who flip those priorities have better answers one shelf over: the Pro 5 14 Intel for GPU and AI work at $108 less, or the Pro 5 16 AMD for sustained CPU throughput at $952 less. For the executive who lives out of a bag and an IT team that has to manage that laptop from three time zones away, this is the one to pick.

Product Page: Dell Pro 7 14

The post Dell Pro 7 14 Intel Review: 26 Hours of Battery in Dell’s Thinnest Pro Laptop appeared first on StorageReview.com.

Samsung’s new 990 SSD joins the consumer lineup as a mainstream PCIe Gen4 drive that prioritizes efficiency and value over raw speed. Samsung calls it its most power-efficient SSD to date, claiming up to 38% better power efficiency than the 990 PRO. The 2TB model is rated at 7,250MB/s sequential read and 6,450MB/s write, with random I/O up to 850K IOPS read and 1,200K IOPS write. The 1TB model steps down slightly to 7,150MB/s sequential read, 700K IOPS random read, and 1,100K IOPS random write. The drive ships in 1TB and 2TB capacities at MSRPs of $269.99 and $529.99, respectively.

The name deserves a modest explanation. Samsung’s 990 family already includes the 990 PRO, 990 EVO, and 990 EVO Plus. The plain “990” now sits alongside them as an entry SSD rather than starting a new generation. It pairs a Samsung in-house controller with V-NAND (more on that later) in a DRAM-less design that relies on a Host Memory Buffer. It carries a three-year warranty, compared to the PRO’s five-year warranty, and is rated for 400TB and 800TB of writes at 1TB and 2TB capacities. Sequential read matches the 990 EVO Plus at 7,250MB/s but trails the 990 PRO’s 7,450MB/s. The 850K IOPS random read rating is well under the PRO’s 1,400K. Samsung’s pitch centers on two numbers: sequential writes are over 50% faster than the 990 EVO, and a 38% efficiency gain; 1,686MB/s per watt on 2TB reads versus 1,221MB/s per watt for the 990 PRO in Samsung’s internal testing. Buyers who prioritize outright speed already have Samsung’s Gen5 9100 PRO family, which we reviewed at launch and again in its 8TB capacity, so the 990 is not meant to compete directly with those drives.

Samsung has been down this road before. The 980, its first DRAM-less consumer NVMe drive, came through our lab in 2021 and left a poor impression. The smaller capacities, in particular, landed at the bottom of our charts, and the drive was relentlessly mocked around the lab. But the market has shifted dramatically since then. The AI buildout is soaking up NAND and DRAM supply, component pricing is climbing, and consumers are feeling the pinch across the board. In that environment, a Gen4 drive that offers solid sequential speed, low power draw, and decent capacity starts to look like a sensible choice, provided the street price cooperates.

One spec Samsung refused to provide is the NAND itself. The reviewer’s guide lists only “Samsung V-NAND.” When we asked directly, the company said it cannot disclose component details beyond official specifications, pointing us back to rated performance and its “latest Samsung V-NAND technology.” So we are left to read between the lines, which point to TLC rather than QLC. The endurance spec is the giveaway: 400TB and 800TB over a three-year warranty works out to roughly 133TB and 267TB of writes per year, essentially the same annual allowance as the 990 PRO’s 600TB and 1,200TB across five years. The likeliest answer is a lower-bin Samsung TLC V-NAND in this drive or a lower-cost, shorter-warranty option to make the drive more affordable. It’s odd that they’re being intentionally coy on what’s typically a foundational specification.

Our review unit is the 2TB model (MZ-V9V2T0), a pre-production sample running firmware 0B2QLXL7, which we put through fio, GDS, and AI model-load testing detailed below.

Samsung 990 SSD Specifications

Specification	Samsung 990 1TB	Samsung 990 2TB
Platform Overview
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x4, NVMe 2.0 (backward compatible with PCIe 3.0)
Form Factor	M.2 2280 Max 80.15 x 22.15 x 2.38 (mm)
Controller	Samsung in-house controller
NAND	Samsung V-NAND
Cache Memory	HMB (Host Memory Buffer), DRAM-less
Model Code	MZ-V9V1T0	MZ-V9V2T0
Performance
Sequential Read	Up to 7,150MB/s	Up to 7,250MB/s
Sequential Write	Up to 6,450MB/s	Up to 6,450MB/s
Random Read	Up to 700K IOPS	Up to 850K IOPS
Random Write	Up to 1,100K IOPS	Up to 1,200K IOPS
Power and Endurance
Active Power (Avg. Read)	4.0W	4.3W
Active Power (Avg. Write)	3.7W	3.8W
Idle Power (Typical)	55mW PS3 (APST on) 3mW PS4 (L1.2)
Endurance (TBW)	400TB	800TB
MTBF	1.5 million hours
Warranty	3 years limited
Features
Supporting Features	TRIM (OS support required) Garbage Collection S.M.A.R.T.
Data Security	AES 256-bit Full Disk Encryption TCG/Opal V2.0 Encrypted Drive (IEEE1667)
Software	Samsung Magician 9.0
MSRP	$269.99	$529.99

Samsung 990 SSD Design and Build

The Samsung 990 uses the familiar M.2 2280 form factor, measuring up to 80.15 x 22.15 x 2.38mm. It has a single-sided design and launches without a dedicated heatsink option. This makes it a good physical fit for notebooks, compact PCs, and desktop motherboards with their own M.2 cooling. The overall construction is simple, with Samsung keeping the controller, NAND, and supporting circuitry on one side of the PCB.

The front label displays the Samsung 990 branding, 2TB capacity, model number, firmware, and electrical specifications. There is no integrated heat spreader, so cooling relies on system airflow and an M.2 heatsink you provide.

With the label removed, you can see Samsung’s in-house controller sitting close to the M.2 connector, with the power components packed around it. The NAND sits at the other end of the board, leaving quite a bit of unused space in the middle. Since this is a DRAM-less drive, there is no separate DRAM chip on the PCB.

The back of the drive is mostly taken up by the regulatory label, with no active components underneath. Again, because the 990 uses a single-sided layout, it should be easier to fit in thin laptops and compact systems where space around the M.2 slot can be tight.

On the software side, the 990 is managed through Samsung Magician 9.0, which covers the essentials: firmware updates, drive health and S.M.A.R.T. monitoring, diagnostic scans, benchmarking, and secure erase, along with setup for the drive’s AES 256-bit encryption features. There’s nothing 990-specific to configure, since the HMB arrangement requires no user tuning. It’s worth installing at first boot to keep the firmware up to date, and Magician is generally a very capable tool that adds value.

Samsung 990 Performance

Peak Synthetic Performance

The FIO test is a flexible and powerful benchmarking tool for measuring the performance of storage devices, including SSDs and HDDs. It evaluates metrics such as bandwidth, IOPS, and latency under different workloads, like sequential and random read/write operations. This test helps to assess the peak performance of storage systems, making it useful for comparing different devices or configurations. We measured the peak burst performance for this test, limiting the workload to a 10GB footprint on both SSDs.

Peak Synthetic Performance: The Samsung 990 delivered 7,177 MB/s sequential read, 6,070 MB/s sequential write, 872K random read IOPS, and 1.08M random write IOPS, placing it near the bottom of this PCIe Gen4/Gen5 comparison group. Compared to the Samsung 990 Pro, the 990 trailed by about 4% in sequential read, but fell 15.7% behind in sequential write, 37.7% behind in random read IOPS, and 23.0% behind in random write IOPS. Against the fastest Gen5 drive, the SanDisk SN8100, the gap widened considerably, with the 990 delivering roughly 52% lower sequential read throughput, 57% lower sequential write throughput, 62% lower random read performance, and 50% lower random write performance.

FIO Test (higher MB/s/IOPS is better)	Sequential 128K Read (1T/64Q)	Sequential 128K Write (1T/64Q)	Random 4K Read (16T/32Q)	Random 4K Write (16T/32Q)
SanDisk SN8100	15,000MB/s (0.56ms avg latency)	14,100MB/s (0.59ms avg latency)	2.312M IOPS (0.22ms avg latency)	2.144M IOPS (0.24ms avg latency)
Kingston FURY Renegade G5	14,600MB/s (0.57ms avg latency)	14,100MB/s (0.59ms avg latency)	2.028M IOPS (0.25ms avg latency)	2.028M IOPS (0.25ms avg latency)
Samsung 9100 Pro	14,600MB/s (0.57ms avg latency)	13,300MB/s (0.63ms avg latency)	2.734M IOPS (0.18ms avg latency)	2.734M IOPS (0.19ms avg latency)
SK hynix Platinum P51	14,500MB/s (0.58ms avg latency)	13,500 MB/s (0.62ms avg latency)	2.369M IOPS (0.22ms avg latency)	2.669M IOPS (0.19ms avg latency)
Crucial T705	14,400MB/s (0.58ms avg latency)	12,300MB/s (0.68ms avg latency)	1.585M IOPS (0.32ms avg latency)	2.703M IOPS (0.19ms avg latency)
TEAMGROUP GE Pro 2TB	13,900MB/s (0.60ms avg latency)	12,800MB/s (0.65ms avg latency)	2.585M IOPS (0.23ms avg latency)	1.818M IOPS (0.28ms avg latency)
Lexar Professional NM1090 PRO	13,800MB/s (0.61ms avg latency)	13,600MB/s (0.62ms avg latency)	2.251M IOPS (0.23ms avg latency)	1.818M IOPS (0.28ms avg latency)
TEAMGROUP GC Pro 2TB	13,600MB/s (0.62ms avg latency)	12,700MB/s (0.66ms avg latency)	2.110M IOPS (0.24ms avg latency)	1.686M IOPS (0.28ms avg latency)
PNY CS2150	10,400MB/s (0.80ms avg latency)	8,801MB/s (0.95ms avg latency)	1.379M IOPS (0.371ms avg latency)	1.623M IOPS (0.32ms avg latency)
Corsair MP700 MICRO 4TB	9,169MB/s (0.91ms avg latency)	7,948MB/s (1.06ms avg latency)	1.277M IOPS (0.40ms avg latency)	1.540M IOPS (0.33ms avg latency)
Crucial P510	8,835MB/s (0.90 ms avg latency)	9,961MB/s (0.80 ms avg latency)	1.163M IOPS (0.44ms avg latency)	1.196M IOPS (0.51ms avg latency)
Micron 3610 2TB	6,839MB/s (1.23ms avg latency)	9,673MB/s (0.87ms avg latency)	1.523M IOPS (0.34ms avg latency)	1.871M IOPS (0.27ms avg latency)
Samsung 990 Pro	7,483MB/s (1.12ms avg latency)	7,197MB/s (1.16ms avg latency)	1.400M IOPS (0.36ms avg latency)	1.403M IOPS (0.36ms avg latency)
Crucial P310 2TB	7,197MB/s (1.16ms avg latency)	6,376MB/s (1.31ms avg latency)	1.163M IOPS (0.44ms avg latency)	1.196M IOPS (0.43ms avg latency)
Samsung 990 2TB	7,177MB/s (1.17ms avg latency)	6,070MB/s (1.38ms avg latency)	872K IOPS (0.59ms avg latency)	1.08M IOPS (0.47ms avg latency)
WD SN850X 2TB	6,632MB/s (0.76ms avg latency)	7,235MB/s (0.92ms avg latency)	1.2M IOPS (0.43ms avg latency)	825K IOPS (0.62ms avg latency)
Micron 2600 2TB	5,702MB/s (1.47ms avg latency)	6,612MB/s (1.27ms avg latency)	1.11M IOPS (0.46ms avg latency)	1.36M IOPS (0.38ms avg latency)

Average LLM Load Time

The Average LLM Load Time test evaluated the load times of three different LLMs: DeepSeek R1 7B, Meta Llama 3.2 11B, and DeepSeek R1 32B. Each model was tested 10 times, and the average load time was calculated. This test measures the drive’s ability to load large language models (LLMs) into memory quickly. LLM load times are critical for AI-related tasks, especially for real-time inference and processing large datasets. Faster loading enables the model to process data more quickly, thereby improving AI responsiveness and reducing wait times.

Average LLM Load Time: AI model loading was the Samsung 990’s weakest test, with the drive finishing at or near the bottom across all three workloads. It recorded 5.06 seconds for DeepSeek R1 7B, 7.61 seconds for Meta Llama 3.2 11B Vision, and 7.86 seconds for DeepSeek R1 32B. Compared to the fastest drive, the SK hynix Platinum P51, the Samsung 990 took approximately 99% longer to load the 7B model, 112% longer to load the 11B Vision model, and 88% longer to load the 32B model. The more interesting result is the Samsung 990 Pro, which lands at the bottom of these charts right alongside its value sibling: the 990 edged out the Pro by about 1% on the 7B load and trailed it by 15% on the 11B Vision model and 8% on the 32B model. Whatever Samsung’s Gen4 drives give up in this workload, they give it up together, so stepping up to the Pro buys little for AI model loading.

Average LLM Load Time (lower is better)	DeepSeek R1 7B	Meta Llama 3.2 11B Vision	DeepSeek R1 32B
SK hynix Platinum P51	2.5481s	3.5809s	4.1790s
SanDisk SN8100	2.5702s	3.5856s	4.2870s
Samsung 9100 Pro 4TB	2.6173s	3.6017s	4.3735s
PNY CS2150	2.8107s	3.6820s	4.8962s
Crucial T705 2TB	2.8758s	3.6312s	5.1080s
Crucial P510 1TB	2.8817s	3.6631s	5.0594s
TEAMGROUP GE Pro 2TB	2.9092s	3.9136s	4.8974s
TEAMGROUP GC Pro 2TB	2.9379s	3.9267s	4.8188s
WD SN850X 2TB	3.0082s	3.6543s	5.4844s
Kingston FURY Renegade G5	3.1843s	4.8009s	4.6523s
Crucial P310 2TB	3.1889s	3.7083s	5.4844s
Lexar Professional NM1090 PRO	3.2135s	4.9504s	7.2108s
Micron 2600 2TB	3.3178s	3.9174s	5.9060s
Corsair MP700 MICRO 4TB	3.4694s	5.2106s	5.3990s
Micron 3610 2TB	3.5348s	5.3853s	5.5731s
Samsung 990 2TB	5.0645s	7.6087s	7.8619s
Samsung 990 Pro 2TB	5.1255s	6.6051s	7.3021s

 

One of the tests conducted on this testbench was the Magnum IO GPU Direct Storage (GDS) test. GDS is a feature developed by NVIDIA that allows GPUs to bypass the CPU when accessing data stored on NVMe drives or other high-speed storage devices. Instead of routing data through the CPU and system memory, GDS enables direct communication between the GPU and the storage device, significantly reducing latency and improving data throughput.

How GPU Direct Storage Works

Traditionally, when a GPU processes data stored on an NVMe drive, the data must first travel through the CPU and system memory before reaching the GPU. This process introduces bottlenecks because the CPU acts as a middleman, adding latency and consuming valuable system resources. GPU Direct Storage eliminates this inefficiency by enabling the GPU to access data directly from the storage device via the PCIe bus. This direct path reduces data-movement overhead, enabling faster, more efficient data transfers.

AI workloads, especially those involving deep learning, are highly data-intensive. Training large neural networks requires processing terabytes of data, and any delay in data transfer can lead to underutilized GPUs and longer training times. GPU Direct Storage addresses this challenge by ensuring that data is delivered to the GPU as quickly as possible, minimizing idle time and maximizing computational efficiency.

In addition, GDS is particularly beneficial for workloads that involve streaming large datasets, such as video processing, natural language processing, or real-time inference. By reducing the reliance on the CPU, GDS accelerates data movement and frees up CPU resources for other tasks, further enhancing overall system performance.

Throughput on the read side climbed steadily as thread count increased. At the 1M block size, the Samsung 990 started at 2.27 GiB/s on a single thread and peaked at 2.89 GiB/s with 64 threads, then settled to 2.79 GiB/s at 128 threads. The 128K block size followed a similar curve, increasing from 1.21 GiB/s at 1 thread to 2.12 GiB/s at 128 threads, roughly a 75% gain. The 16K block size behaved differently. It peaked at a single thread (0.82 GiB/s), dropped sharply once concurrency was introduced, and plateaued around 0.3 GiB/s from 8 threads onward. This pattern is consistent with small block I/O saturating on per-operation overhead rather than raw bandwidth.

Latency scaled as expected, rising with thread count. At 1M, average latency grew from 430 microseconds on one thread to 44.7 milliseconds on 128 threads, roughly a 100x increase, reflecting increased queue depth due to more concurrent GPUDirect Storage threads. The 128K and 16K block sizes showed the same upward trend, reaching 7.4 milliseconds and 6.2 milliseconds, respectively, at 128 threads. Notably, 16K had the lowest single-thread latency of the three (18 microseconds), reflecting its smaller per-operation payload, even though its overall throughput ceiling was the lowest.

Write throughput varied by block size. The 1M block size stood out, jumping from 0.32 GiB/s at a single thread to 3.89 GiB/s at 8 threads, its peak, before tapering slightly to 3.63 GiB/s at 128 threads as queueing overhead increased. The 128K and 16K block sizes remained flat across the thread range, hovering near 0.3 GiB/s regardless of concurrency. This suggests the write path is limited by per-I/O overhead or controller queuing rather than bandwidth at those sizes.

Latency on writes rose more steeply than on reads, particularly at 128K, which climbed from 382 microseconds at one thread to 51.0 milliseconds at 128 threads, the highest figure recorded across either write or read testing. The 1M block size showed an unusual dip, with latency dropping from 3.06 milliseconds on one thread to 1.03 milliseconds on four threads, likely because the single-thread run was not yet saturating the write path, then climbing steadily to 34.4 milliseconds on 128 threads. The 16K block size stayed the most consistent, closing the sweep at 9.1 milliseconds, the lowest ceiling of the three block sizes.

Conclusion

The Samsung 990 isn’t chasing the top of the charts, and the numbers make that clear. It trailed the 990 Pro across every FIO test we ran, from a 4% gap in sequential read to a 38% deficit in random read IOPS, and fell well behind the fastest Gen4 and Gen5 drives in this comparison group. AI model loading tells a similar story, with the 990 and 990 Pro finishing at the bottom of the field together; the 990 actually edged its Pro sibling on the DeepSeek R1 7B load while trailing by 8 to 15% on the larger models. Buyers who need peak throughput for demanding workloads should look elsewhere in Samsung’s lineup, starting with the Gen5 9100 Pro.

That said, judging the 990 against the fastest drives on the market misses the point of the drive. This is a mainstream Gen4 SSD built around efficiency and value, not benchmark supremacy, and compared to its real predecessor, the 990 EVO, it’s a solid upgrade. Sequential writes are more than 50% faster, power efficiency is up 38% by Samsung’s own numbers, and the drive still delivers sequential read speeds in line with the 990 EVO Plus. Samsung chose to stay quiet on the NAND itself, but the endurance ratings suggest a competent TLC implementation rather than a QLC design.

For buyers who don’t need Gen5 speeds or Pro-tier random I/O, and who want a dependable, power-efficient Gen4 drive at a workable price, the 990 is a sensible upgrade path from the EVO line. Notably, stepping up to the 990 Pro buys nothing for AI model loading, so the choice between the two comes down to random I/O and sustained writes rather than anything AI-related. At $269.99 for 1TB and $529.99 for 2TB, the MSRPs reflect the current memory market more than the drive’s entry positioning, so the 990’s value case will ultimately be set by street prices. It’s not the drive to buy if raw performance is the priority, but it does what it’s meant to do.

Product Page – Samsung 990

The post Samsung 990 SSD Review: A Value Gen4 SSD for Expensive Times appeared first on StorageReview.com.

Sandisk and Kioxia have both begun sampling BiCS10 1Tb TLC 3D NAND, the 10th generation of the BiCS flash memory the two companies jointly develop and manufacture. The announcements land in parallel because the technology is shared: Sandisk is framing it around higher density, faster interfaces, and better power efficiency for data-intensive workloads, while Kioxia is aiming its version squarely at enterprise and data center SSDs built to meet the growing demand of AI storage. It is the same 332-layer NAND from the same joint venture, announced from both sides.

A 332-Layer Jump in Density

The headline change is all about the layers. BiCS10 stacks 332 layers and, combined with advanced lateral scaling and improved floor-plan efficiency, reaches an industry-leading 1Tb TLC memory density greater than 29 Gb/mm2. Against the 8th-generation BiCS8 node currently in mass production, that works out to a 59% improvement in bit density. Higher bit density is the number that matters most to buyers, since it is what lowers cost per bit and lets drive makers pull more capacity out of the same die area. At 332 layers, BiCS10 sits at the leading edge of the 3D NAND stack race, in the same class as SK hynix’s 321-layer generation and a clear step beyond the 276-layer nodes that defined the previous wave.

Faster Interface, Lower Power

BiCS10 TLC supports a NAND interface speed of up to 4.8 Gb/s, a 33% improvement over the 8th-generation flash in mass production, giving controller makers the NAND-side bandwidth that coming PCIe Gen6-class SSDs will need. Power efficiency also improves, though the two partners quantify it differently. Sandisk cites a 10% reduction in data input power and a 34% reduction in data output power versus BiCS8. Kioxia frames the gains as 18% and 30% improvements in write and read power efficiency. Either way, the direction is the same, and the benefit is most meaningful in dense enterprise and data center deployments where NAND power adds up across thousands of drives.

Built on CBA, Made at Kitakami

Both companies continue to build on CMOS directly Bonded to Array (CBA) technology, in which the CMOS logic and the memory array are fabricated on separate wafers and then bonded together with wafer-to-wafer alignment. First adopted at the 8th generation, CBA is paired here with On-Pitch Select Gate Drain (OPS) technology, and BiCS10 extends that foundation with a taller, denser array. Kioxia says the 10th-generation devices will be manufactured with state-of-the-art equipment at its Kitakami Plant Fab2 in Iwate Prefecture, Japan.

Kioxia also positioned BiCS10 within what it calls a dual-axis strategy, advancing two product lines at once: its 9th-generation technology for high performance at a lower investment cost, and its 10th-generation technology, which relies on advanced layer stacking for massive capacity and higher performance. For Sandisk, the milestone is also an early marker as a standalone company following its 2025 separation from Western Digital, with BiCS10 among its first next-generation NAND announcements under the independent Sandisk banner.

Availability

BiCS10 1Tb TLC is in the sampling stage, meaning the devices are going to partners for functional evaluation before broader availability, and sample specifications may differ from mass production. Sandisk has not shared a mass-production timeline or named the first commercial products, while Kioxia has only confirmed production is planned at its Kitakami Plant Fab2. Given both companies’ point BiCS10 at enterprise, data center, and AI storage, the first drives to use it will most likely be Gen6 high-capacity enterprise and hyperscale SSDs.

The post Sandisk and Kioxia Begin Sampling 332-Layer BiCS10 3D NAND appeared first on StorageReview.com.

Intel’s Core Ultra 7 265K sits in the middle of the Arrow Lake-S desktop stack, pairing 20 cores with a much larger architectural change than you might expect. The layout consists of 8 Lion Cove P-cores and 12 Skymont E-cores, for 20 cores and 20 threads, with Hyper-Threading removed in this generation. The P-cores have a 3.9GHz base frequency and reach 5.4GHz, with Turbo Boost Max 3.0 taking the chip to 5.5GHz. The E-cores run from 3.3GHz to 4.6GHz, and the CPU carries 30MB of L3 cache.

Intel launched the 265K with a recommended customer price (RCP) of $394-$404, while the 265KF, which drops integrated graphics, came in at a lower price of $379-$389. As of this review, the 265K is commonly selling well below RCP, with retail listings in the $290-$343 range, depending on the store and availability.

The main reason to look closely at the 265K is efficiency, not peak throughput. Compared with the Core i7-14700K it effectively replaces, Arrow Lake is designed to deliver similar or better productivity performance while drawing less power in everyday workloads. The trade-off is gaming, and it’s worth calling that out before we get to the benchmarks. Arrow Lake’s higher memory latency, platform changes, and the removal of Hyper-Threading leave the 265K roughly on par with, or slightly behind, the 14700K at 1080p in many launch reviews. At the same time, AMD’s X3D chips still hold an advantage in games that lean heavily on cache. This is a cooler, more efficient desktop CPU, but not one that reshapes the gaming hierarchy.

Our results align with that framing. We tested the 265K on an MSI MEG Z890 Unify-X with 48GB of DDR5 and an NVIDIA RTX 4090, running Windows 11. In Cinebench R23, the chip posted 35,905 multi-core points and 2,267 single-core points. In Cinebench 2024, it scored 2,000 multi-core and 136 single-core. Geekbench 6.4 came in at 3,092 single-core and 20,019 multi-core. The 3DMark CPU Profile shows where the no-Hyper-Threading design lands across thread counts, peaking at 17,269 in the max-threads test while holding a strong 1,343 in single-thread. Threaded compression also scaled well in 7-Zip, with a total rating of 128.9 GIPS across 20 threads, and y-cruncher computed Pi to 5 billion digits in 113 seconds at 89% multi-core efficiency. Against the Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference numbers our team pulled, the 265K trades well in threaded work and holds its own in single-thread performance, while the X3D parts keep the gaming cache advantage. As the pricing above shows, those are all costlier chips, so the 265K is holding this ground a full tier down on price.

The full details of the CPU’s performance follow below.

Intel Core Ultra 7 265K Specifications

Specification	Intel Core Ultra 7 265K
General
Processor Family	Intel® Core Ultra Processors (Series 2)
Model	Intel® Core Ultra 7 265K
Code Name	Arrow Lake
Market Segment	Desktop
Launch Date	Q4 2024
MSRP	$394–$404 USD
CPU Specifications
Total Cores	20 (8 Performance + 12 Efficient)
Total Threads	20
Max Turbo Frequency	5.5 GHz
Turbo Boost Max 3.0	5.5 GHz
P-Core Turbo	5.4 GHz
E-Core Turbo	4.6 GHz
P-Core Base Clock	3.9 GHz
E-Core Base Clock	3.3 GHz
L3 Cache	30MB Intel Smart Cache
L2 Cache	36MB
Processor Base Power	125W
Maximum Turbo Power	250W
CPU AI Performance	33 TOPS (Overall), Intel AI Boost
Memory
Maximum Memory	256GB
Memory Support	DDR5-6400
Memory Channels	2
ECC Support	Yes
Integrated Graphics
GPU	Intel® Graphics
Xe-Cores	4
GPU Frequency	300 MHz Base / 2.0 GHz Max
GPU AI Performance	8 TOPS (INT8)
Display Support	HDMI 2.1, DisplayPort 2.1 UHBR20, eDP 1.4b
Maximum Displays	4
Media Engine	H.264, H.265/HEVC, AV1 Encode/Decode, Intel Quick Sync Video
NPU
NPU	Intel® AI Boost
NPU Performance	13 TOPS (INT8)
Sparsity Support	Yes
Windows Studio Effects	Supported
Platform
Socket	FCLGA1851
DMI Revision	4.0 (8 Lanes)
PCI Express	PCIe 5.0 & PCIe 4.0
PCIe Lanes	24
PCIe Configurations	1×16+2×4, 2×8+2×4, 1×8+4×4
Thunderbolt Support	Intel Thunderbolt 4
Maximum Operating Temperature	105°C
Package Size	45 × 37.5 mm

Intel Core Ultra 7 265K Performance

For testing, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K was installed in a high-end Z890 desktop platform with a discrete RTX 4090. Full specifications include:

• CPU: Intel Core Ultra 7 265K
• Motherboard: MSI MEG Z890 Unify-X
• Memory: 48GB DDR5
• Graphics: NVIDIA RTX 4090
• Operating system: Windows 11

To put the 265K’s numbers in context, we compared it against four AMD X3D processors we have run through the same StorageReview CPU test suite: the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, the flagship Ryzen 9 9950X3D, and the dual-cache Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Dual Edition. All four are gaming-focused parts built around AMD’s stacked 3D V-Cache, and all sit above the $ 265K price point, from the $479 9800X3D up to the $899 9950X3D2. The 265K, by contrast, streets around $300, so it is competing against chips that cost roughly 1.5x to 3x as much. The results below are worth reading with that gap in mind.

Processor	Price
Intel Core Ultra 7 265K	$394–$404 RCP (~$290–$343 street)
AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D	$479 MSRP (~$450 street)
AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D	$499
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D	$699 MSRP (~$675 street)
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Dual Edition	$899

 

3DMark CPU Profile

The 3DMark CPU Profile measures CPU performance across different workloads by testing 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and max threads. It highlights how the CPU handles single-threaded tasks, gaming workloads, and multithreaded applications such as 3D rendering. The benchmark minimizes GPU impact, providing a clear view of CPU performance across various scenarios.

The Core Ultra 7 265K performs very well in 3DMark CPU Profile, especially at lower thread counts. Its 17,269 max-thread score puts it just behind the stronger Ryzen 9 9950X3D result, while staying ahead of the other 9950X3D run and far ahead of the 8-core X3D chips. The 16-thread result trails both Ryzen 9 samples, which is where the lack of Hyper-Threading shows up, but the 265K takes the lead at 8, 2, and 1 threads. Overall, that is a good result for Arrow Lake, with strong single-thread and lightly threaded scores helping balance out the weaker scaling at 16 threads.

3DMark CPU Profile (higher is better)	Intel Core Ultra 7 265K	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
Max Threads	17,269	17,672	16,690	10,261	10,018
16 Threads	14,968	16,956	15,983	10,285	10,034
8 Threads	9,567	9,141	9,070	8,611	8,269
4 Threads	4,973	4,980	4,846	4,867	4,646
2 Threads	2,626	2,508	2,521	2,487	2,394
1 Threads	1,343	1,274	1,264	1,267	1,213

y-cruncher

y-cruncher is a popular benchmarking and stress-testing application launched in 2009. This multithreaded, scalable test computes Pi and other constants to trillions of digits. Faster is better in this test.

Results were a bit more mixed for the 265K with y-cruncher. Compared to the fastest Ryzen 9 9950X3D result, the Intel chip is quite a bit slower, taking 17.979 seconds at 1 billion digits, 50.679 seconds at 2 billion digits, and 113.078 seconds at 5 billion digits. It is much closer to the other 9950X3D sample, though, and it stays ahead of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D across all three runs. The 9950X3D2 result is the outlier, but against the rest of the group, the 265K is still decent for heavier compute work.

y-cruncher (lower time is better)	Intel Core Ultra 7 265K	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
1 Billion	17.979 s	12.605 s	16.450 s	18.503 s	21.487 s
2 Billion	50.679 s	34.925 s	48.047 s	52.589 s	64.273 s
5 Billion	113.078s	77.370 s	109.343 s	115.581 s	143.891 s

y-cruncher BBP

This y-cruncher benchmark uses the Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe (BBP) formulas to compute a large number of hexadecimal digits of Pi and measures the CPU’s total computation time, utilization, and multi-core efficiency.

At 1 BBP, 10 BBP, and 100 BBP, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K trails every Ryzen chip in the table, with the gap widening over the long run. At 100 BBP, the Intel chip takes 104.952 seconds, compared with 50.291 seconds for the regular Ryzen 9 9950X3D and just 47.070 seconds for the fastest 9950X3D result. This is one of the weaker results for the 265K, especially compared with how competitive it looked in the regular y-cruncher Pi tests.

y-cruncher BBP (lower time is better)	Intel Core Ultra 7 265K	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
1 BBP	0.876 s	0.384 s	0.426 s	0.669 s	0.671 s
10 BBP	9.654 s	4.173 s	4.538 s	7.501 s	7.497 s
100 BBP	104.952 s	47.070 s	50.291 s	83.719 s	83.345 s

Maxon Cinebench

Cinebench is a widely used benchmarking tool that measures CPU and GPU performance by rendering in Maxon Cinema 4D. It provides a score that lets you compare the performance of different systems and components. We ran R23 and R24, both popular Cinebench versions, so you can compare the results with those on popular online leaderboards.

Cinebench R23

The Core Ultra 7 265K performed well here, posting 35,905 multi-core points in R23. This put it behind the two Ryzen 9 9950X3D results but well ahead of both Ryzen 7 X3D chips. The single-core score is even better, with the 265K taking the top spot at 2,267 points.

Cinebench R23 (higher is better)	Intel Core Ultra 7 265K	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
Multi-Core	35,905	42,555	39,993	21,382	22,718
Single-Core	2,267	2,248	2,200	2,216	2,089

Cinebench R24

Cinebench 2024 follows a similar pattern, with the 265K behind the Ryzen 9 parts in multi-core but ahead of the Ryzen 7 chips. Its 136-point single-core score is near the top of the group. For rendering-style CPU work, the 265K does not beat the 16-core Ryzen 9 chips, but it performs well given its core and thread layout.

Cinebench R24 (higher is better)	Intel Core Ultra 7 265K	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
Multi-Core	2,000	2,508	2,246	1,366	1,338
Single-Core	136	143	134	142	130

7-Zip Compression

The 7-Zip Compression Benchmark evaluates CPU performance during compression and decompression by measuring GIPS (Giga Instructions Per Second) and CPU usage. Higher GIPS and efficient CPU usage indicate superior performance.

Overall, 7-Zip shows the 265K performing better at decompression than at compression. Its compression rating of 109.475 GIPS trails the Ryzen 9 chips and also falls behind the Ryzen 7 9850X3D and 9800X3D, even though its CPU usage is higher than on the 8-core parts. Decompression is stronger, with the 265K reaching 148.292 GIPS and beating both Ryzen 7 X3D chips, though it is still far behind the Ryzen 9 9950X3D results. The total rating of 128.883 GIPS puts it slightly ahead of the 9800X3D, just behind the 9850X3D, and well behind the 16-core Ryzen parts.

7-Zip Compression	Intel Core Ultra 7 265K	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
Compressing
Current CPU Usage	1,538%	2,736%	2,737%	1,394%	1,387%
Current Rating/Usage	7.098 GIPS	7.132 GIPS	6.565 GIPS	8.864 GIPS	8.488 GIPS
Current Rating	109.161 GIPS	195.145 GIPS	179.648 GIPS	123.563 GIPS	117.745 GIPS
Resulting CPU Usage	1,541%	2,717%	2,727%	1,390%	1,393%
Resulting Rating/Usage	7.106 GIPS	7.186 GIPS	6.531 GIPS	8.852 GIPS	8.466 GIPS
Resulting Rating	109.475 GIPS	195.272 GIPS	178.094 GIPS	123.073 GIPS	117.895 GIPS
Decompressing
Current CPU Usage	1,870%	3,148%	3,034%	1,564%	1,570%
Current Rating/Usage	7.992 GIPS	8.674 GIPS	8.207 GIPS	8.821 GIPS	8.365 GIPS
Current Rating	149.435 GIPS	273.103 GIPS	248.987 GIPS	137.919 GIPS	135.527 GIPS
Resulting CPU Usage	1,854%	3,134%	3,036%	1,567%	1,564%
Resulting Rating/Usage	8.000 GIPS	8.643 GIPS	8.242 GIPS	8.820 GIPS	8.663 GIPS
Resulting Rating	148.292 GIPS	270.917 GIPS	250.233 GIPS	138.223 GIPS	135.448 GIPS
Total Rating
Total CPU Usage	1,697%	2,926%	2,882%	1,479%	1,478%
Total Rating/Usage	7.553 GIPS	7.915 GIPS	7.387 GIPS	8.836 GIPS	8.564 GIPS
Total Rating	128.883 GIPS	233.094 GIPS	214.163 GIPS	130.648 GIPS	126.671 GIPS

UL Procyon

UL Procyon AI Inference is designed to gauge a workstation’s performance in professional applications. This test does not leverage multiple CPU capabilities. Specifically, this tool benchmarks the workstation’s ability to handle AI-driven tasks and workflows, providing a detailed assessment of its efficiency and speed in processing complex AI algorithms and applications.

The 265K delivers a middle-of-the-pack result in UL Procyon AI Computer Vision, with an overall score of 216. That places it just behind the regular Ryzen 9 9950X3D at 220 and ahead of both Ryzen 7 X3D chips, but behind the faster 9950X3D2 score of 271. The individual model results vary a fair bit, as well. MobileNet V3 is quick on the 265K, and YOLO V3 is stronger than the regular 9950X3D and both Ryzen 7 chips, but ResNet 50, DeepLab V3, and REAL-ESRGAN favor the Ryzen 9 results. It is a respectable CPU-based AI result, but the 265K doesn’t stand out from the group.

UL Procyon (higher score & lower ms is better)	Intel Core Ultra 7 265K	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
Overall AI Computer Vision Score	216	271	220	209	188
MobileNet V3	0.84 ms	0.97 ms	0.94 ms	0.70 ms	0.61 ms
ResNet 50	5.95 ms	3.76 ms	5.33 ms	5.95 ms	7.01 ms
Inception V4	17.25 ms	13.90 ms	17.12 ms	19.34 ms	22.28 ms
DeepLab V3	22.75 ms	19.26 ms	21.70 ms	20.40 ms	23.98 ms
YOLO V3	28.30 ms	24.93 ms	35.27 ms	48.17 ms	56.07 ms
REAL-ESRGAN	2034.57 ms	1,593.81 ms	2,037.51 ms	2,348.97 ms	2,728.62 ms

PCMark10

PCMark 10 evaluates CPU performance by simulating real-world office productivity tasks such as word processing, web browsing, video conferencing, and spreadsheet calculations. The benchmark combines workloads that reflect modern workplace demands, providing a comprehensive assessment of how a CPU handles day-to-day applications.

The 265K delivered modest results on its PCMark 10 test system, producing an overall score of 9,940. That places it behind all comparable Ryzen chips, including both Ryzen 7 X3D parts. While the gap isn’t huge, it’s still the lowest score in the group, with the Ryzen 9 9950X3D reaching 10,849 and the Ryzen 7 9800X3D scoring 10,250. For general productivity testing, the 265K is still fast, but the AMD chips have the edge in this benchmark.

PCMark10 (higher is better)	Intel Core Ultra 7 265K	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
Overall Score	9,940	10,650	10,849	10,461	10,250

SPECworkstation 4.4.0

SPECworkstation 4 specializes in benchmarks that test all key aspects of workstation performance. It uses over 30 workloads to evaluate CPU, graphics, I/O, and memory bandwidth. The workloads fall into broader categories, including Media and Entertainment, Financial Services, Product Development, Energy, Life Sciences, and General Operations. We will list each broad-category result rather than the individual workloads. The results are averages across all individual workloads in each category.

SPECworkstation gives the 265K a solid set of results, with its best showings in Life Sciences and Product Design. In Life Sciences, it scores 2.70, essentially matching the regular Ryzen 9 9950X3D at 2.71 and beating the faster 9950X3D2 result. Product Design is also strong at 2.54, ahead of the regular 9950X3D and both Ryzen 7 chips, though still behind the 9950X3D2. The weaker areas are AI and Machine Learning, Financial Services, and Media and Entertainment, where the Ryzen 9 chips pull ahead. The 265K is competitive in several workstation categories, but the 16-core Ryzen 9 parts still have the bigger advantage across the full SPECworkstation set.

SPECworkstation 4.4.0 (higher is better)	Intel Core Ultra 7 265K	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2	AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D	AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
AI & Machine Learning	2.75	3.96	3.30	2.95	2.92
Energy	2.59	3.22	2.66	2.20	2.13
Financial Services	1.99	2.63	2.48	1.42	1.42
Life Sciences	2.70	2.62	2.71	2.11	2.15
Media & Entertainment	3.05	3.39	3.34	2.56	2.57
Product Design	2.54	2.75	2.43	2.14	2.08
Productivity & Development	1.27	1.39	1.28	1.14	1.12

Conclusion

The Core Ultra 7 265K is the clearest example yet of what Arrow Lake is for. In our testing, it delivered strong single-thread performance, solid lightly threaded results, and respectable multi-core output for a 20-core, 20-thread design, all while running cooler and drawing less power than the Core i7-14700K it replaces. Gaming and the most heavily threaded workloads remain the weak spots, where AMD’s cache-heavy X3D parts still lead. The context that matters is price: those X3D chips run from roughly 1.5x to 3x the 265K’s street cost, so it is losing those specific contests to processors in a different price class. Judged where it actually competes, around $300, the 265K is an easy recommendation for productivity, content creation, efficiency, and platform features, and a harder sell only for buyers building strictly around top-end frame rates.

For those who want more from Intel, the Core Ultra 200S Plus refresh sits directly above it on the same LGA1851 platform. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus adds four E-cores for 24 total, raises die-to-die frequency by up to 900 MHz to trim system latency, supports DDR5-7200, and includes Intel’s Binary Optimization Tool for select games, a higher-performance option without changing motherboards. But priced well below its $394-$404 launch RCP, the 265K is the value anchor of the lineup and the CPU that makes Arrow Lake’s efficiency argument the easiest to accept.

Product Page – Intel Core Ultra 7 265K

The post Intel Core Ultra 7 265K Review: Arrow Lake’s Smarter Middle Ground appeared first on StorageReview.com.

Intel’s return to boxed workstation processors arrived on February 2, 2026, when the company announced the Xeon 600 series, codenamed Granite Rapids-WS, with retail parts reaching shelves in late March. The launch folded the old Xeon W-2500 and W-3500 lines into a single family of 11 SKUs on the new W890 chipset and LGA4710 socket, topped by the 86-core Xeon 698X at $7,699. We have already spent time near the top of this family, reviewing the 64-core Xeon 696X inside HP’s Z8 Fury G6i; the Intel Xeon 658X is the lower-core counterpart, a 24-core, 48-thread part that currently sells for roughly $2,000 to $2,300 at retail, above its $1,869 list, and tested here on a bare lab platform rather than a tuned OEM workstation.

The 658X carries a 3.0 GHz base clock, 4.9 GHz max turbo, 144 MB of cache, and a 250W base power rating that climbs to 300W at maximum turbo. It pairs eight DDR5-6400 channels, a 4TB memory ceiling, and 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes with the AMX and AVX-512 acceleration that the whole family shares. Those platform figures are the same ones the 64- and 86-core parts carry; what changes as you move down the stack is core count, not memory reach or I/O. That makes the 658X a useful test of how much of the Xeon 600’s value lies in the platform rather than in the core count.

One piece of context is worth raising up front, with a caveat. A persistent round of enthusiast reporting and roadmap leaks holds that Granite Rapids-WS is a terminal platform: Intel has dropped mainstream Diamond Rapids from its Xeon roadmap, leaving Coral Rapids around 2028 as the next likely refresh. Intel has not confirmed any of this to us, and nothing official extends the workstation line beyond Granite Rapids-WS on the W890 socket. Buyers who care about a clean in-socket upgrade path should track how that shakes out, but for anyone evaluating the 658X on its own merits today, it changes little.

For this review, the Xeon 658X is installed in an Asus Pro WS W890E-SAGE SE board, giving us a look at the CPU across rendering, AI, compression, storage, and general system benchmarks.

Intel Xeon 600 Family Overview

SKU	Cores / Threads	Base / Boost	All-Core Turbo	L3 Cache	Base TDP	Mem Channels	Peak Memory	PCIe 5.0 Lanes	Boxed
Xeon 698X	86 / 172	2.0 / 4.8 GHz	3.0 GHz	336 MB	350 W	8	DDR5-8000 (MRDIMM)	128	—
Xeon 696X	64 / 128	2.4 / 4.8 GHz	3.5 GHz	336 MB	350 W	8	DDR5-8000 (MRDIMM)	128	Yes
Xeon 678X	48 / 96	2.4 / 4.9 GHz	3.8 GHz	192 MB	300 W	8	DDR5-8000 (MRDIMM)	128	Yes
Xeon 676X	32 / 64	2.8 / 4.9 GHz	4.3 GHz	144 MB	275 W	8	DDR5-8000 (MRDIMM)	128	Yes
Xeon 674X	28 / 56	3.0 / 4.9 GHz	4.3 GHz	144 MB	270 W	8	DDR5-8000 (MRDIMM)	128	—
Xeon 658X (review unit)	24 / 48	3.0 / 4.9 GHz	4.3 GHz	144 MB	250 W	8	DDR5-6400	128	Yes
Xeon 656	20 / 40	2.9 / 4.8 GHz	4.5 GHz	72 MB	210 W	8	DDR5-6400	128	—
Xeon 654	18 / 36	3.1 / 4.8 GHz	4.5 GHz	72 MB	200 W	8	DDR5-6400	128	Yes
Xeon 638	16 / 32	3.2 / 4.8 GHz	4.5 GHz	72 MB	180 W	4	DDR5-6400	80	—
Xeon 636	12 / 24	3.5 / 4.7 GHz	4.5 GHz	48 MB	170 W	4	DDR5-6400	80	—
Xeon 634	12 / 24	2.7 / 4.6 GHz	3.9 GHz	48 MB	150 W	4	DDR5-6400	80	—

All SKUs support DDR5-6400 (1 DPC) and up to 4TB of memory, CXL 2.0, and per-core AMX with FP16. X-series parts are unlocked. MRDIMM (DDR5-8000) is limited to the top five SKUs (674X and up). The 638, 636, and 634 drop to four memory channels and 80 PCIe lanes. Source: Intel.

Intel Xeon 658X Performance

Performance Testing

Review Unit Specifications

Our Intel Xeon 658X test platform consists of the following specifications:

• Motherboard: Asus Pro WS W890E-SAGE SE
• CPU: Intel Xeon 658X
• Memory: 128 GB DDR5-6400 ECC (4×32 GB)
• Storage: Samsung 9100 Pro 1TB
• Cooler: Noctua NH-U12S DX-4677

For context, we lined the Xeon 658X up against two higher-core workstation platforms we have recently tested. The HP Z8 Fury G6i represents the top of this same Xeon 600 family, running the 64-core Xeon 696X with 128GB of memory and two NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Max-Q GPUs. The Dell Precision 7875 covers the AMD side, built on the 96-core Threadripper PRO 9995WX with 512GB of memory and two RTX PRO 6000 cards. Both carry far more cores than the 24-core 658X, so these results are less about matching peak multi-threaded throughput and more about showing where a lower-core Xeon 600 part lands against the parts above and across from it. Since the focus here is on the CPU, GPU differences across platforms matter little for the benchmarks that follow.

Procyon AI Computer Vision

The Procyon AI Computer Vision Benchmark measures AI inference performance across CPUs, GPUs, and dedicated accelerators using a range of state-of-the-art neural networks. It evaluates tasks such as image classification, object detection, segmentation, and super-resolution using models that include MobileNet V3, Inception V4, YOLO V3, DeepLab V3, Real ESRGAN, and ResNet 50. Tests are run on multiple inference engines, including NVIDIA TensorRT, Intel OpenVINO, Qualcomm SNPE, Microsoft Windows ML, and Apple Core ML, providing a broad view of hardware and software efficiency. Results are reported for float- and integer-optimized models, providing a consistent, practical measure of machine vision performance for professional workloads.

CPU AI Computer Vision Overall Score

In the Procyon AI Computer Vision CPU benchmark, the Intel Xeon 658x platform achieved an overall score of 248, placing it ahead of both the HP Z8 Fury G6i (207) and the Dell Precision 7875 (157). The Xeon platform was about 20% faster than the HP system and roughly 58% ahead of the AMD-based Precision workstation, giving it the strongest CPU inference result in this group.

CPU Results	HP Z8 Fury G6i (Intel Xeon 696x 48C, 2.4GHz | 128GB RAM)	Intel Xeon 658X Test Platform (24C, 3.0GHz | 128GB RAM)	Dell Precision 7875 (AMD 9995WX 96C, 2.5GHz | 512GB RAM)
CPU Results
AI Computer Vision Overall Score	207	248	157
MobileNet V3	3.74 ms	1.26 ms	5.74 ms
ResNet 50	5.34 ms	4.58 ms	6.52 ms
Inception V4	17.16 ms	14.86 ms	20.42 ms
DeepLab V3	29.18 ms	26.29 ms	47.75 ms
YOLO V3	23.23 ms	26.20 ms	21.97 ms
REAL-ESRGAN	837.83 ms	1113.34 ms	1288.54 ms

Blender 4.5 CPU

Blender is an open-source 3D modeling application. This benchmark was run using the Blender Benchmark utility across CPU and GPU. The score is measured in samples per minute, with higher values indicating better performance.

In the Blender 4.5 CPU benchmark, the Intel Xeon 658x platform trailed both comparison systems across all three scenes. It posted 365.315 samples per minute in Monster, 234.081 in Junkshop, and 186.163 in Classroom. The HP Z8 Fury G6i was about 87% to 92% faster, depending on the scene, while the Dell Precision 7875 was much further ahead, with gains ranging from roughly 184% to 218%.

Blender CPU (samples per minute; higher is better)	HP Z8 Fury G6i (Intel Xeon 696x 48C, 2.4GHz | 128GB RAM)	Intel Xeon 658X Test Platform (24C, 3.0GHz | 128GB RAM)	Dell Precision 7875 (AMD 9995WX 96C, 2.5GHz | 512GB RAM)
Monster	694.751	365.315	1039.121
Junkshop	449.356	234.081	744.601
Classroom	347.940	186.163	574.705

Blender 5.0 CPU

In the Blender 5.0 CPU benchmark, the Intel Xeon 658x platform again trailed the HP Z8 Fury G6i across all three scenes. The Xeon system reached 313.386 samples per minute in Monster, 241.790 in Junkshop, and 183.265 in Classroom. The HP system was about 90% to 93% faster across the workload set.

Blender CPU (samples per minute; higher is better)	HP Z8 Fury G6i (Intel Xeon 696x 48C, 2.4GHz | 128GB RAM)	Intel Xeon 658X Test Platform (24C, 3.0GHz | 128GB RAM)
Monster	606.140	313.386
Junkshop	467.820	241.790
Classroom	347.874	183.265

PCMark 10

PCMark 10 is an industry-standard benchmark that measures overall system performance in modern office environments. It features updated workloads for Windows 10 or 11 and evaluates everyday tasks such as productivity, web browsing, video conferencing, and content creation. The benchmark is easy to run, delivers multi-level scoring (from high-level overall scores to detailed workload scores), and includes dedicated battery-life and storage tests. While UL Solutions now recommends Procyon for newer application-based testing, PCMark 10 remains a reliable and widely used tool for assessing overall PC performance.

In PCMark 10, the Intel Xeon 658x platform posted an overall score of 9,657, placing it ahead of the HP Z8 Fury G6i (7,742) but behind the Dell Precision 7875 (11,433). The Xeon system was about 25% faster than the HP workstation, while the Dell system finished roughly 18% ahead.

PCMark10 (higher is better)	HP Z8 Fury G6i (Intel Xeon 696x 48C, 2.4GHz | 128GB RAM)	Intel Xeon 658X Test Platform (24C, 3.0GHz | 128GB RAM)	Dell Precision 7875 (AMD 9995WX 96C, 2.5GHz | 512GB RAM)
Overall Score	7,742	9,657	11,433

Blackmagic RAW Speed Test

The Blackmagic RAW Speed Test is a performance benchmarking tool that measures a system’s ability to handle video playback and editing with the Blackmagic RAW codec. It evaluates how well a system can decode and play back high-resolution video files, providing frame rates for both CPU- and GPU-based processing.

In the Blackmagic RAW Speed Test, the Intel Xeon 658x platform delivered 205 FPS in the 8K CPU test and 181 FPS in the 8K GPU test. Its CPU result was about 34% behind the HP Z8 Fury G6i but roughly 30% ahead of the Dell Precision 7875. The GPU result was weaker, trailing the HP by about 72% and the Dell by roughly 52%.

Blackmagic RAW (Higher FPS is better)	HP Z8 Fury G6i (Intel Xeon 696x 48C, 2.4GHz | 128GB RAM)	Intel Xeon 658X Test Platform (24C, 3.0GHz | 128GB RAM)	Dell Precision 7875 (AMD 9995WX 96C, 2.5GHz | 512GB RAM)
8K CPU	311	205	158
8k GPU	650	181	276

3DMark CPU

The 3DMark CPU Profile evaluates processor performance across six threading levels: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and max threads. Each test runs the same boid-based simulation workload to assess how well the CPU scales under different thread counts, with minimal GPU involvement. The benchmark helps identify single-threaded efficiency and multithreaded potential for tasks such as gaming, content creation, and rendering. Scores on 8 threads often align with modern DirectX 12 gaming performance, while 1–4-thread results reflect older or esports scenarios.

The 3DMark CPU Profile benchmark showed the Intel Xeon 658x platform ahead of the HP Z8 Fury G6i across every thread count, though the Dell Precision 7875 took the lead in the heavier multi-threaded tests. At Max Threads, the Xeon scored 16,890, about 7% ahead of the HP and roughly 39% behind the Dell. The Xeon also kept a smaller advantage over the HP in the lower-thread tests, including 990 at 1 thread and 13,022 at 16 threads.

3DMark CPU (Higher is better)	HP Z8 Fury G6i (Intel Xeon 696x 48C, 2.4GHz | 128GB RAM)	Intel Xeon 658X Test Platform (24C, 3.0GHz | 128GB RAM)	Dell Precision 7875 (AMD 9995WX 96C, 2.5GHz | 512GB RAM)
Max Threads	15,792	16,890	27,670
16 Threads	11,241	13,022	15,378
8 Threads	6,635	7,185	8,477
4 Threads	3,594	3,751	4,701
2 Threads	1,816	1,944	2,378
1 Threads	895	990	1,237

Geekbench 6

Geekbench 6 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures overall system performance.

In Geekbench 6, the Intel Xeon 658x platform delivered CPU results very close to those of the HP Z8 Fury G6i, while trailing the AMD-powered Dell Precision 7875. The Xeon scored 2,383 in single-core and 21,447 in multi-core performance, putting it about 2% ahead of the HP in single-core and roughly 1.6% ahead in multi-core. The Dell Precision 7875 was still well ahead, with leads of about 36% in single-core and 33% in multi-core performance.

GeekBench (Higher is better)	HP Z8 Fury G6i (Intel Xeon 696x 48C, 2.4GHz | 128GB RAM)	Intel Xeon 658X Test Platform (24C, 3.0GHz | 128GB RAM)	Dell Precision 7875 (AMD 9995WX 96C, 2.5GHz | 512GB RAM)
CPU Single Core	2,333	2,383	3,240
CPU Multi-Core	21,110	21,447	28,618

Y-Cruncher

y-cruncher is a multithreaded and scalable program that can compute Pi and other mathematical constants to trillions of digits. Since its launch in 2009, it has become a popular benchmarking and stress-testing application for overclockers and hardware enthusiasts.

In Y-Cruncher, the Intel Xeon 658x platform had a mixed showing, starting behind the HP Z8 Fury G6i but still beating the Dell Precision 7875 in the smaller 250-million- and 500-million-digit runs. The Xeon completed 250 million digits in 1.711 seconds and 500 million digits in 3.758 seconds, faster than the Dell but around 41% to 42% behind the HP. As the workload increased, the Xeon fell behind both comparison systems, with the 5-billion-, 10-billion-, and 25-billion-digit tests taking 54.207 seconds, 118.898 seconds, and 326.454 seconds, respectively.

Y-Cruncher (lower duration is better)	HP Z8 Fury G6i (Intel Xeon 696x 48C, 2.4GHz | 128GB RAM)	Intel Xeon 658X Test Platform (24C, 3.0GHz | 128GB RAM)	Dell Precision 7875 (AMD 9995WX 96C, 2.5GHz | 512GB RAM)
250 Million	1.203 s	1.711 s	2.369 s
500 Million	2.667 s	3.758 s	4.281 s
1 Billion	6.042 s	8.312 s	7.617 s
2.5 Billion	17.047 s	23.065 s	15.188 s
5 Billion	37.890 s	54.207 s	29.795 s
10 Billion	82.983 s	118.898 s	61.572 s
25 Billion	232.832 s	326.454 s	169.289 s
50 Billion	N/A	N/A	371.039 s
100 Billion	N/A	N/A	844.503 s

Y-Cruncher BBP

The Y-Cruncher BBP test uses the Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe formula, which extracts binary digits of Pi at a specific position without computing the digits that come before it. Unlike the main swap-mode runs that lean heavily on the memory subsystem, BBP digit extraction is almost entirely compute-bound and highly parallel, so it scales with raw core throughput rather than memory bandwidth. Lower durations are better.

In the Y-Cruncher BBP runs, the 24-core Xeon 658X completed the 1 billion, 10 billion, and 100 billion digit tests in 0.506, 5.415, and 59.520 seconds. That is roughly half the throughput of the 64-core Xeon 696X in the HP Z8 Fury G6i (0.333, 2.806, and 29.897 seconds), in line with the core-count gap between the two. The Dell Precision 7875 did not get BBP testing.

Y-Cruncher BBP (lower duration is better)	HP Z8 Fury G6i (Intel Xeon 696x 48C, 2.4GHz | 128GB RAM)	Intel Xeon 658X Test Platform (24C, 3.0GHz | 128GB RAM)
1 Billion BBP	0.333 s	0.506 s
10 Billion BBP	2.806 s	5.415 s
100 Billion BBP	29.897 s	59.520 s

7-Zip Compression

The 7-Zip Compression Benchmark evaluates CPU performance during compression and decompression, measuring GIPS (Giga Instructions Per Second) and CPU usage. Higher GIPS and efficient CPU usage indicate superior performance.

In the 7-Zip Compression Benchmark, the Intel Xeon 658x platform delivered a Total Rating of 250.083 GIPS. That placed it behind the HP Z8 Fury G6i, which was about 38% faster overall, but far ahead of the Dell Precision 7875 in this specific result set. The Xeon also posted a Resulting Compression Rating of 233.557 GIPS and a Resulting Decompression Rating of 266.608 GIPS, again trailing the HP but finishing well ahead of the Dell numbers shown here.

7-Zip Compression Benchmark (higher is better)	HP Z8 Fury G6i (Intel Xeon 696x 48C, 2.4GHz | 128GB RAM)	Intel Xeon 658X Test Platform (24C, 3.0GHz | 128GB RAM)	Dell Precision 7875 (AMD 9995WX 96C, 2.5GHz | 512GB RAM)
Compression
Current CPU Usage	5,483%	4,038%	6,445%
Current Rating/Usage	6.247 GIPS	5.786 GIPS	6.949 GIPS
Current Rating	342.522 GIPS	233.641 GIPS	48.392 GIPS
Resulting CPU Usage	5,461%	4,037%	701%
Resulting Rating/Usage	6.242 GIPS	5.705 GIPS	7.010 GIPS
Resulting Rating	340.875 GIPS	233.557 GIPS	49.108 GIPS
Decompression
Current CPU Usage	6,029%	4,688%	728%
Current Rating/Usage	5.839 GIPS	5.705 GIPS	6.801 GIPS
Current Rating	352.023 GIPS	267.475 GIPS	49.526 GIPS
Resulting CPU Usage	5,990%	4,657%	749%
Resulting Rating/Usage	5.827 GIPS	5.725 GIPS	6.832 GIPS
Resulting Rating	349.054 GIPS	266.608 GIPS	51.181 GIPS
Total Rating
Total CPU Usage	5,726%	4,347%	725%
Total Rating/Usage	6.034 GIPS	5.755 GIPS	6.921 GIPS
Total Rating	344.964 GIPS	250.083 GIPS	50.145 GIPS

Conclusion

The Intel Xeon 658X is a platform play, not a core-count play, and the numbers align with that. It is a 24-core part tested against the 64-core Xeon 696X in the HP Z8 Fury G6i and the 96-core AMD Threadripper PRO 9995WX in the Dell Precision 7875, so the heavily threaded losses are no surprise. In Blender 4.5 CPU, it trailed both, with the HP roughly 87% to 92% faster and the Dell 184% to 218% ahead across the three scenes. 7-Zip ran in the same direction; its total of 250.083 GIPS is about 38% behind the HP. When a workload scales across two to four times the number of cores, a 24-core chip loses, and this one does too.

What it does not lose is the work that relies on the platform and its cores. The 658X led the entire group in Procyon AI Computer Vision CPU at 248, about 20% ahead of the HP and 58% ahead of the Dell, a result that tracks with the FP16-capable AMX units in every Xeon 600 core. It also edged the 64-core HP in general-system and lightly-threaded tests despite the core deficit: 9,657 in PCMark 10 (about 25% over the HP, though 18% behind the Dell), a lead at every 3DMark CPU Profile thread count, and a near tie with the same-generation 696X in Geekbench 6 at 2,383 single-core and 21,447 multi-core. Single-thread parity with its 64-core sibling is the tell, since both run the same Redwood Cove cores.

The hardware behind those results is consistent across the stack. The 658X carries 24 cores, 48 threads, 144 MB of cache, eight channels of DDR5-6400, a 4TB memory ceiling, and 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes, the same I/O and memory reach Intel gives the 64- and 86-core parts above it. It does not open a memory-channel lead over the Threadripper PRO platform, since both run eight channels at DDR5-6400. What Intel sells here is capacity and lane count for the money, not bandwidth that the competition cannot match.

One caveat belongs in the buying decision, with a qualifier. Granite Rapids-WS looks like a limited-life platform: enthusiast reports indicate that Intel has dropped mainstream Diamond Rapids, with no workstation successor in sight, leaving Coral Rapids around 2028 as the next likely refresh, and Intel has not confirmed any of that. For a self-built rig bought as a future upgrade path on W890, that uncertainty matters. For the way most of these chips will actually ship, inside a complete HP, Dell, or Lenovo workstation, it matters far less, since those buyers replace whole systems on a refresh cycle rather than dropping a new CPU into an old socket. In that context, the 658X is a sound choice. It is not the part for heavy multi-threaded rendering, but it is a lower-core entry into Intel’s new workstation platform with full I/O and memory, group-leading CPU AI inference, and solid general-system results for builders who value memory capacity and PCIe lanes over raw cores.

Product Page – Intel Xeon 658X

The post Intel Xeon 658X Review: 24 Cores Into Intel’s New Workstation Platform appeared first on StorageReview.com.

Sandisk has expanded its Optimus gaming SSD lineup with the new SANDISK Optimus GX PRO 850P NVMe SSD for PS5 consoles, alongside the SANDISK Optimus GX 7100X NVMe SSD for ROG Xbox Ally X and PC. The company also announced availability for several other Optimus drives.

Sandisk Optimus GX PRO 850P NVMe SSD

The Sandisk Optimus GX PRO 850P NVMe SSD is officially licensed for PlayStation 5 and PlayStation 5 Pro, with testing and certification for Sony’s console platform. It also features an exclusive heatsink design with PlayStation branding, which is built for the PS5 M.2 slot, so buyers do not need to add a separate heatsink.

With game install sizes, updates, and DLC continuing to eat into console storage, the Optimus GX PRO 850P is designed for users who want to keep more titles installed and ready to play. Sandisk lists capacities up to 8TB, giving PS5 owners enough room for much larger game libraries while reducing the need to delete older titles to make space for new releases. The drive supports playing games directly from the SSD once installed, which makes it a direct expansion option rather than just a place to store inactive games.

Performance is based on PCIe Gen 4.0 NVMe technology, with Sandisk quoting sequential speeds of up to 7,300MB/s read and 6,600MB/s write, depending on capacity. For the 1TB model, Sandisk lists up to 7,300MB/s sequential read and 6,300 MB/s sequential write, along with 800K random read IOPS and 1.1M random write IOPS. The 1TB model is also rated for 600TBW endurance and carries a five-year limited warranty.

Although the 850P is mainly marketed as a PS5 and PS5 Pro upgrade, Sandisk also lists compatibility with computers that have an M.2 M-key slot and support the M.2 2280 form factor, along with Windows 10 and newer.

Sandisk Optimus GX 7100X NVMe SSD

The Sandisk Optimus GX 7100X NVMe SSD gives ROG Xbox Ally, ROG Xbox Ally X, and PC users an officially licensed storage upgrade built for portable gaming and larger game libraries. It supports capacities up to 4TB, giving players more room for Xbox titles, updates, DLC, and Game Pass downloads without constantly managing installs. Sandisk also includes a one-month Xbox Game Pass Ultimate trial in the box.

Performance comes from a PCIe 4.0 NVMe interface, with Sandisk listing sequential read and write speeds of up to 7,250 MB/s and 6,900 MB/s on the 2TB model. The 2TB model is also rated for up to 1M random read IOPS and 1.4M random write IOPS, uses the M.2 2280 form factor, measures 3.15 x 0.87 x 0.09 inches, and features a five-year limited warranty.

The Optimus GX 7100X is also power-efficient, which is especially relevant for handheld gaming PCs, where power draw can affect battery life. The drive is also built with SanDisk’s 8th-generation BiCS TLC 3D CBA NAND and is tested for ROG Xbox Ally, ROG Xbox Ally X, and PC use.

Metric/Field	SANDISK Optimus GX PRO 850P NVMe SSD	SANDISK Optimus GX 7100X NVMe SSD
Overview
Product Name	SANDISK Optimus GX PRO 850P NVMe SSD for PS5 consoles	SANDISK Optimus GX 7100X NVMe SSD for ROG XBOX Ally X and PC
Positioning	Officially licensed for PlayStation 5 and PlayStation 5 Pro consoles	Officially licensed storage for ROG XBOX Ally, ROG XBOX Ally X, and PC
Maximum Capacity	Up to 8TB	Up to 4TB
Form Factor	M.2 2280	M.2 2280
Performance
Interface	PCIe 4.0 NVMe	PCIe 4.0 NVMe
Sequential Read Performance	7,300MB/s	7,250MB/s
Sequential Write Performance	6,300MB/s	6,900MB/s
Maximum Sequential Read/Write Speeds	Up to 7,300/6,600 MB/s	Up to 7,250/6,900 MB/s
Random Read	800K IOPS	1M IOPS
Random Write	1.1M IOPS	1.4M IOPS
Hardware and Design
Heatsink	Integrated heatsink Exclusive heatsink design featuring the PlayStation logo Optimized for the PlayStation 5 and PlayStation 5 Pro consoles’ M.2 slot	Not specified
NAND	Not specified	Sandisk’s 8th generation BiCS TLC 3D CBA NAND
Power Efficiency	Not specified	Designed for power efficiency for low-power consumption for laptops and ROG XBOX Ally X
Physical Specifications
Dimensions (L x W x H)	3.15″ x 0.96″ x 0.39″	3.15″ x 0.87″ x 0.09″
Weight	30.4gms	Not specified
Reliability
Warranty	5-Year Limited Warranty	5-Year Limited Warranty
Endurance (TBW)	600	1,200
Operating Temperature	0°C to 85°C	N/A
Non-Operating Temperature	-40°C to 85°C	N/A
Compatibility
Primary Compatibility	PlayStation 5 and PlayStation 5 Pro	ROG XBOX Ally, ROG XBOX Ally X, and PC
PC Compatibility	Computers with M.2 (M-key) port (Capable of taking M.2 2280 form factor) Windows 10+	PC laptops ROG XBOX Ally ROG XBOX Ally X
Product Features
Features	Experience high-speed gaming SSD with PCIe 4.0 technology. New SSD heatsink design specifically built for PS5 and PS5 Pro consoles. Download and play games directly off the drive.	Equipped with PCIe 4.0 interface provides the speed and power for on-the-go XBOX gaming. Designed for power efficiency for low-power consumption for laptops and ROG XBOX Ally X. Endurance of up to 2,400 TBW.
Included Offer	N/A	1-month trial of XBOX Game Pass Ultimate inside the box
Model and Availability
Model Number	SDSG81100TAH-000E0	SDSG71200TAN-000G0
Starting Price	$474.99	$799.99
Availability	Sandisk store and select retailers	Sandisk store and select retailers

Availability and Pricing

The Sandisk Optimus GX PRO 850P NVMe SSD for PS5 consoles is available now through the Sandisk store and select retailers, with pricing starting at $474.99.

Pricing for the Sandisk Optimus GX 7100X NVMe SSD starts at $799.99, with availability now through the Sandisk store and select retailers.

Other Releases

Alongside these launches, the broader Sandisk Optimus lineup is now available through the Sandisk store and select retailers, including:

• SANDISK Optimus GX PRO 8100 NVMe SSD: Designed for professionals, gamers, and creators, the GX PRO 8100 is positioned as a high-performance PCIe 5.0 drive for demanding AI workflows, intensive gaming, and creative workloads. Pricing starts at $524.99.
• SANDISK Optimus GX PRO 850X NVMe SSD: Built for users who need high-capacity storage for gaming and creative applications, the GX PRO 850X offers capacities up to 8TB for larger game libraries, applications, and project files. Pricing starts at $488.99.
• SANDISK Optimus GX 7100 NVMe SSD: The GX 7100 is designed for laptops and handheld gaming consoles, using a power-efficient architecture for gaming sessions and creative workflows on the move. Pricing starts at $207.99.
• SANDISK Optimus GX 7100M NVMe SSD: Built for portable systems, the GX 7100M supports upgrades for compatible Steam Deck, MSI Claw, Microsoft Surface, and Dell laptop systems, with capacities up to 2TB for modern AAA games. Pricing starts at $387.99.
• SANDISK Optimus 5110 NVMe SSD: Planned for release later this year, the Optimus 5110 targets creators seeking faster application launches, greater capacity, and more room for high-resolution video and image files.

The post Sandisk Expands Optimus SSD Lineup with New PS5 and ROG Xbox Ally Storage Options appeared first on StorageReview.com.

Graid Technology has introduced VROC by Graid Technology, a rebranded and actively developed version of Intel VROC that will continue to support existing deployments while adding new platform support, licensing changes, and future product features. Graid launched the platform at Computex Taipei.

The updated platform builds on Intel VROC’s established role as a CPU-based software NVMe RAID solution for Intel-powered enterprise servers. Moreover, it is now moving from sustained maintenance into active development under Graid Technology, with a 24-month roadmap planned for new platforms, features, and OEM-driven updates.

Active Development for an Established RAID Platform

Part of the roadmap is support for Intel Xeon 6 platforms, including Oak Stream with Diamond Rapids. Graid identifies the initial Xeon 6 D and W launch targets as Birch Stream, Granite Rapids WS, and Kaseyville. Existing Intel VROC customers on supported Xeon 6-based systems will be able to move to VROC by Graid Technology at no additional cost.

VROC by Graid Technology is a CPU-based software RAID platform using Intel VMD and UEFI. It supports RAID 0, 1, 5, and 10, with ESXi RAID 1/5 listed on the roadmap. Supported operating environments include Windows, Linux, and VMware ESXi. The platform is designed for Intel Xeon-based enterprise servers that need boot-capable NVMe RAID, Tier 1 OEM systems, workstation and client platforms using native Intel RAID, and mixed environments that run both VROC and SupremeRAID.

Licensing Changes and SupremeRAID Coexistence

The roadmap includes a shift to UEFI-based licensing for new deployments, eliminating the need for hardware keys. Existing hardware-key licensing will continue to be supported on Xeon 6 platforms for current deployments.

Graid Technology is also adding coexistence support with SupremeRAID, allowing CPU-based RAID and GPU-accelerated RAID to run on the same Intel Xeon platform. In that setup, VROC can be used for boot and operating system volumes, while SupremeRAID can be used for performance-critical data tiers.

Additional roadmap items include GPUDirect Storage, OpenBMC, PLDM5 firmware updates through out-of-band management, SED hot-plug support, NVMe HDD support, and PCIe Gen 6.

OEM Support and Rollout Timeline

OEM support comes from Tier 1 server partners Lenovo and Supermicro, which have endorsed Graid Technology’s stewardship of the platform and contributed to the updated roadmap.

Support for Intel VROC on Graid Technology is now available. VROC by Graid Technology branding and feature updates are expected to roll out through OEM and channel partners starting in Q3 2026.

VROC by Graid Technology

The post VROC Returns to Active Development Under Graid Technology, Backed by Lenovo and Supermicro appeared first on StorageReview.com.

The Radeon RX 9070 GRE is not a new GPU. AMD introduced it last year as a China-only part, and at Computex 2026, the company gave it a global release. It slots into the upper-mainstream space below the RX 9070, focused on 1440p performance, modern display support, and the hardware behind newer features such as ray tracing, upscaling, frame generation, and AI-assisted rendering. It is not a flagship, but it aims to be a middle-ground 1440p option sitting under the more expensive cards in the lineup.

The AMD RX 9070 GRE is built around RDNA 4, with updated compute units, third-generation ray tracing accelerators, second-generation AI accelerators, and an enhanced media engine. That gives the card a stronger feature set than basic performance alone can provide, which is important in this price range. Buyers are also looking at ray tracing, AV1 encoding, high-refresh 1440p monitor support, driver features, and whether 12GB of memory will hold up well in newer titles over the next few years.

On paper, AMD lines up the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16GB against the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16GB, which sells for around $569, and claims up to 22 percent higher performance across a mix of 40-plus raster and ray-tracing games, plus a 26 percent edge in performance per dollar. Those are AMD’s own figures, so we treat them as a starting point rather than a verdict. The more awkward comparison is inside AMD’s own stack. At $549, the GRE carries the same launch MSRP as the RX 9070, a card with 16GB, a 256-bit bus, and more enabled cores, and AMD is now listing the RX 9070 at $619. The GRE arrives at the price the better card used to hold, which says more about current memory and component costs than about the GRE’s standalone value.

For gamers coming from older 1080p or early 1440p GPUs, the RX 9070 GRE should be the most appealing option as a full-platform upgrade card. It brings 12GB of video memory, PCIe 5.0 x16 connectivity, DisplayPort 2.1a, HDMI 2.1b, and the newer RDNA 4 media block, which gives it a broader feature set than a simple FPS-focused upgrade. The 12GB memory capacity is not as generous as the 16GB found on some competing cards, and that will be worth watching in heavier future titles, but AMD is clearly aiming this GPU at high-quality 1440p gaming first.

Radeon RX 9070 GRE Specifications

Specifications Overview	AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT	AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE	AMD Radeon RX 9070	AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT
Architecture	RDNA 4	RDNA 4	RDNA 4	RDNA 4
Compute Units	32	48	56	64
Stream Processors / Shaders	2,048	3,072	3,584	4,096
Ray Accelerators	32	48	56	64
AI Accelerators	64	96	112	128
Boost Clock	Up to 3.13 GHz	Up to 2.79 GHz	Up to 2.52 GHz	Up to 2.97 GHz
Memory Capacity	8GB / 16GB GDDR6	12GB GDDR6	16GB GDDR6	16GB GDDR6
Memory Bus	128-bit	192-bit	256-bit	256-bit
Memory Bandwidth	320 GB/s	432 GB/s	640 GB/s	640 GB/s
Infinity Cache	32 MB	48 MB	64 MB	64 MB
Peak FP32 Throughput	25.6 TFLOPS	34.3 TFLOPS	36.1 TFLOPS	48.7 TFLOPS
Peak INT4 AI Performance	821 TOPS	1,097 TOPS	1,156 TOPS	1,557 TOPS
Typical Board Power (TBP)	160W	220W	220W	304W
Recommended PSU	450W	650W	650W	750W
Launch MSRP	$299 (8GB) / $349 (16GB)	$549	$549	$599

Radeon RX 9070 GRE

The Radeon RX 9070 GRE is an AIB-only card, so the physical design will vary by partner model. Cooler size, fan layout, card thickness, factory tuning, acoustics, and smaller quality-of-life details will vary between brands. Partner cards are expected from Acer, ASUS, ASRock, Gigabyte, PowerColor, Sapphire, and XFX, so buyers should see the usual spread of dual-fan and triple-fan designs depending on price tier and case compatibility.

Our review sample is a PowerColor Radeon RX 9070 GRE with a full-size triple-fan cooler. It has a simple black shroud with minimal branding, aside from the PowerColor logos on the fans and the side edge. The card is long and built around cooling headroom, but the GRE version avoids the overly bulky styling found on some higher-end GPU designs. Around back, the card uses a full-length metal backplate with ventilation cutouts near the end. That will help provide some airflow through the rear section of the heatsink. The design is pretty simple overall, but that’s fine for its class.

The PowerColor model’s display output includes three DisplayPort 2.1a connections and one HDMI 2.1b port, which covers the usual mix for high-refresh 1440p monitors, 4K displays, and living-room setups.

At the GPU level, the RX 9070 GRE uses 48 RDNA 4 compute units, 48 hardware ray tracing accelerators, and 96 hardware AI accelerators. The boost clock runs up to 2.79 GHz, with peak AI performance rated at 1097 TOPS using INT4 sparsity. That puts the GRE comfortably above entry-level gaming cards, but still leaves a gap between it and the larger RX 9070.

It also features 12GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, running at 18 Gbps. That gives the card 432 GB/s of effective bandwidth, which is a sensible configuration for 1440p gaming, especially for traditional rasterized workloads. The 12GB capacity is still something to keep in mind for buyers who plan to hold onto the card for several years, especially if they want to push ultra textures, ray tracing, and upscaling features in newer games.

The RX 9070 GRE is rated for 220 W total board power and recommends a 650 W power supply. This PowerColor model uses two standard 8-pin PCIe power connectors, which is a straightforward setup for a 220 W card and should work with most existing gaming PSUs. It also avoids any need for 12VHPWR or 12V-2×6 adapters, where cable seating and routing have been bigger concerns on some higher-power GPUs.

The updated media engine also supports H.264, HEVC, and AV1 encode and decode, which is useful for streamers, creators, and anyone recording gameplay locally.

AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE Performance

To test the new AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE, we utilized our high-performance AMD Threadripper platform, featuring a 64-core CPU and a custom water-cooling loop. This setup ensures the GPU operates at full capacity without CPU bottlenecks. For comparison, we tested the Radeon RX 9070 GRE alongside the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT, ASUS Prime Radeon RX 9070, ASUS Prime Radeon RX 9070 XT, PNY NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Founders Edition, and ASUS Prime NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti. This mix of competing AMD and NVIDIA GPUs provides a useful mix of current upper-midrange and higher-end GPUs for evaluating gaming, AI, content creation, and synthetic benchmark performance.

Below is the complete system configuration.

StorageReview AMD Threadripper Test Platform

• Motherboard: ASUS Pro WS TRX50-SAGE WIFI
• CPU: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7980X 64-Core
• RAM: 128GB DDR5 4800MT/s
• Storage: 2TB Samsung 980 Pro
• OS: Windows 11 Pro for Workstations
• Driver: AMD Adrenalin 25.3.1

UL Procyon: AI Text Generation

The Procyon AI Text Generation Benchmark simplifies AI LLM performance testing by providing a compact, consistent evaluation method. It allows for repeated testing across multiple LLM models while minimizing the complexity of large model sizes and variable factors. Developed with AI hardware leaders, it optimizes the use of local AI accelerators for more reliable and efficient performance assessments. The results shown below were tested using TensorRT on NVIDIA models and ONNX on AMD models.

The Radeon RX 9070 GRE performed as expected for its class, ahead of the RX 9060 XT but behind the larger RX 9070 and NVIDIA’s current line. It scored 1,579 on Phi, 1,699 on Mistral, and 1,526 on Llama3, giving it a noticeable step up over the RX 9060 XT across those models. The gap to the RX 9070 is still noticeable, with the RX 9070 scoring 1,933 in Phi and 2,040 in Mistral, while the RTX 5060 Ti also stays ahead in most of the text-generation results. The one rough spot is Llama2, where the GRE falls to 1,026 and trails even the RX 9060 XT. Overall, the RX 9070 GRE can handle local AI testing, but this is still a gaming card first.

UL Procyon: AI Text Generation	AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT	AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE	AMD Radeon RX 9070	AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 FE	ASUS PRIME NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti
Phi Overall Score	1,281	1,579	1,933	2,080	2,870	3,453	4,179
Phi Output Time To First Token	1.473 s	1.089 s	0.954 s	0.855 s	0.375 s	0.323 s	0.290 s
Phi Output Tokens Per Second	94.453 tokens/s	105.954 tokens/s	139.187 tokens/s	144.471 tokens/s	120.773 tokens/s	150.435 tokens/s	192.487 tokens/s
Phi Overall Duration	39.365 s	33.473 s	26.989 s	25.587 s	25.216 s	20.302 s	15.771 s
Mistral Overall Score	1,274	1,699	2,040	2,231	2,807	3,562	4,412
Mistral Output Time To First Token	1.827 s	1.200 s	1.109 s	0.946 s	0.526 s	0.433 s	0.374 s
Mistral Output Tokens Per Second	65.115 tokens/s	76.040 tokens/s	101.300 tokens/s	103.348 tokens/s	91.057 tokens/s	120.507 tokens/s	160.167 tokens/s
Mistral Overall Duration	54.516 s	44.303 s	34.960 s	33.350 s	33.377 s	25.496 s	19.480 s
Llama3 Overall Score	1,150	1,526	1,904	2,070	2,599	3,125	4,187
Llama3 Output Time To First Token	1.632 s	1.143 s	0.981 s	0.845 s	0.449 s	0.379 s	0.306 s
Llama3 Output Tokens Per Second	53.167 tokens/s	65.507 tokens/s	87.594 tokens/s	89.102 tokens/s	74.709 tokens/s	100.388 tokens/s	131.583 tokens/s
Llama3 Overall Duration	62.563 s	49.833 s	38.273 s	36.742 s	39.489 s	29.720 s	22.786 s
Llama2 Overall Score	1,252	1,026	2,047	2,298	2,576	3,125	4,284
Llama2 Output Time To First Token	2.992 s	3.290 s	1.926 s	1.565 s	0.844 s	0.785 s	0.560 s
Llama2 Output Tokens Per Second	34.654 tokens/s	25.577 tokens/s	59.673 tokens/s	61.127 tokens/s	41.386 tokens/s	56.647 tokens/s	75.905 tokens/s
Llama2 Overall Duration	99.027 s	146.871 s	59.100 s	55.520 s	71.302 s	53.234 s	39.545 s

UL Procyon: AI Image Generation

The Procyon AI Image Generation Benchmark consistently and accurately measures AI inference performance across various hardware, from low-power NPUs to high-end GPUs. It includes three tests: Stable Diffusion XL (FP16) for high-end GPUs, Stable Diffusion 1.5 (FP16) for moderately powerful GPUs, and Stable Diffusion 1.5 (INT8) for low-power devices. The benchmark uses the optimal inference engine for each system, ensuring fair and comparable results.

The Radeon RX 9070 GRE performs better in Procyon AI Image Generation than it does in the text-generation test, especially compared to the RX 9060 XT. In Stable Diffusion 1.5 FP16, it scored 1,930 and completed the run in 51.812 seconds, a nice jump over the RX 9060 XT’s 1,436 and 69.633 seconds. It still trails the RTX 5060 Ti at 2,110 and the RX 9070 at 2,280, but the difference is fairly small in this test. Stable Diffusion XL FP16 follows the same pattern, with the GRE scoring 1,544 versus 1,124 for the RX 9060 XT, while the RX 9070, RTX 5070 FE, and RTX 5070 Ti move further ahead.

For the Stable Diffusion 1.5 INT8, it scores 18,332 and completes the run in 13.637 seconds, with a generation speed of 1.705 seconds per image. That trails the RTX 5060 Ti at 27,705 and 1.128 seconds per image, while the RTX 5070 FE and RTX 5070 Ti stretch the gap further at 36,320 and 46,744. This is one of NVIDIA’s obvious advantages in this benchmark set.

Stable Diffusion XL FP16 shows the Radeon RX 9070 GRE in a better spot relative to the RX 9060 XT, with a score of 1,544 versus 1,124 and a much shorter overall time of 388.432 seconds compared to 533.736 seconds. The RX 9070 is still faster at 1,805, while the RX 9070 XT reaches 2,010. NVIDIA remains well ahead in this workload, with the RTX 5070 FE at 2,473 and the RTX 5070 Ti at 3,352.

UL Procyon: AI Image Generation (overall score: higher is better)	AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT	AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti	AMD Radeon RX 9070	AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 FE	ASUS PRIME NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (FP16) — Overall Score	1,436	1,930	2,110	2,280	2,598	2,937	3,755
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (FP16) — Overall Time	69.633 s	51.812 s	47.590 s	43.858 s	38.481 s	34.038 s	26.625 s
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (FP16) — Image Generation Speed	4.352 s/image	3.238 s/image	2.974 s/image	2.741 s/image	2.405 s/image	2.127 s/image	1.664 s/image
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (INT8) — Overall Score	N/A	18,332	27,705	N/A	N/A	36,320	46,744
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (INT8) — Overall Time	N/A	13.637 s	9.024 s	N/A	N/A	6.883 s	5.348 s
Stable Diffusion 1.5 (INT8) — Image Generation Speed	N/A	1.705 s/image	1.128 s/image	N/A	N/A	0.860 s/image	0.669 s/image
Stable Diffusion XL (FP16) — Overall Score	1,124	1,544	1,940	1,805	2,010	2,473	3,352
Stable Diffusion XL (FP16) — Overall Time	533.736 s	388.432 s	326.550 s	332.400 s	298.499 s	242.606 s	178.946 s
Stable Diffusion XL (FP16) — Image Generation Speed	33.359 s/image	24.277 s/image	20.409 s/image	20.775 s/image	18.656 s/image	15.163 s/image	11.184 s/image

Luxmark

Luxmark is a GPU benchmark that uses LuxRender, an open-source ray-tracing renderer, to assess a system’s performance on highly detailed 3D scenes. This benchmark is particularly relevant for evaluating the graphical rendering capabilities of servers and workstations, especially in visual effects and architectural visualization applications, where accurate light simulation is crucial.

Here, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE scored 5,708 in the Food scene and 12,279 in Hall, putting it comfortably ahead of the RX 9060 XT but behind the RTX 5060 Ti and well behind the RX 9070. The RX 9070 posts 8,233 in Food and 16,566 in Hall, while the RTX 5070 FE stretches further ahead at 9,061 and 22,062. For rendering-style workloads, the 9070 GRE shows a decent step up over the lower-tier Radeon option.

Luxmark (higher is better)	AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT	AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti	AMD Radeon RX 9070	AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 FE	ASUS PRIME NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti
Food Score	4,220	5,708	6,590	8,233	8,610	9,061	12,073
Hall Score	8,007	12,279	15,348	16,566	16,758	22,062	28,635

Geekbench 6

Geekbench 6 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures overall system performance. The Geekbench Browser allows you to compare any system to it.

The Radeon RX 9070 GRE scored 136,742, which puts it very close to the RX 9070’s 138,463 and well ahead of the RX 9060 XT’s 102,750. That is one of the GRE’s better showings, especially given its lower placement in the lineup. The RTX 5060 Ti still comes in higher at 150,743, while the RTX 5070 FE and RX 9070 XT move further ahead at 173,255 and 188,892. Still, for a card positioned below the RX 9070, coming this close in OpenCL is a good result.

Geekbench (higher is better)	AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT	AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE	AMD Radeon RX 9070	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 FE	AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT	ASUS PRIME NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti
GPU OpenCL Score	102,750	136,742	138,463	150,743	173,255	188,892	246,875

3D Mark

3DMark Port Royal, Speed Way, and Steel Nomad are GPU benchmarks that test performance in different scenarios. Port Royal focuses on ray tracing, Speed Way evaluates performance in racing simulations, and Steel Nomad challenges GPUs with high-intensity, realistic graphics. They assess GPU capabilities in rendering, lighting, and dynamic scenes.

The RX 9070 GRE performed well here, particularly when compared to the RTX 5060 Ti. In Port Royal, it scored 13,066, ahead of the RTX 5060 Ti’s 10,432, though behind the RTX 5070 FE at 14,026 and the RX 9070 at 15,760. Speed Way is even tighter, with the GRE scoring 4,272, just ahead of the RTX 5060 Ti at 4,184, but still a clear step below the RTX 5070 FE and RX 9070. Steel Nomad is another solid result, with the GRE hitting 5,085 in DX12 and 5,220 in Vulkan, beating the RTX 5060 Ti and landing slightly ahead of the RTX 5070 FE’s 5,019.

3D Mark (higher is better)	AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti	AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 FE	AMD Radeon RX 9070	AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT	ASUS PRIME NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti
Port Royal	9,751	10,432	13,066	14,026	15,760	17,989	19,290
Speed Way	3,004	4,184	4,272	5,869	5,791	6,237	7,709
Steel Nomad	3,767	3,611	5,085 (DX12) / 5,220 (Vulkan)	5,019	5,992	6,977	6,458

Power Consumption: PowerColor Radeon RX 9070 GRE

Power consumption is a significant component of any computing platform, whether high- or low-end. Higher-performance GPUs can place greater demands on the power supply and cooling setup, especially under sustained load. However, there is another aspect of power regarding performance: faster GPUs might reach higher peak performance, but the duration of each workload decreases.

During our testing, the PowerColor Radeon RX 9070 GRE demonstrated a strong balance between performance and energy usage. The test system measured 133.4W at idle and peaked at 785.3W under load while running the UL Procyon AI Image Generation benchmark. This represents a maximum system increase of roughly 652W during the workload.

The benchmark completed in 24.5 seconds, with the system consuming 3.84Wh over the duration of the run. While the 9070 GRE draws considerably more power than lower-tier  Nvidia GPUs at peak load, its faster completion time helps keep total energy consumption relatively competitive. This places it between the Radeon RX 9060 XT and higher-performing enthusiast-class GPUs, offering a reasonable tradeoff between performance and power efficiency.

Power Testing Summary	AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT	AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE	PNY NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 FE	AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT	ASUS Prime NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti
Power Consumed	4.00 Wh	3.84 Wh	2.13 Wh	2.46 Wh	3.41 Wh	1.66 Wh
Test Duration	33.0 s	24.5 s	20.2 s	19.2 s	17.4 s	11.1 s

Conclusion

The Radeon RX 9070 GRE does a good job of filling the space between AMD’s mainstream and higher-end RDNA 4 cards. It’s not as powerful as the RX 9070 or RX 9070 XT, but it offers buyers a stronger 1440p option than the RX 9060 XT while keeping the price below that of the more expensive cards in AMD’s line. With 48 compute units, 12GB of GDDR6, a 192-bit bus, and 432 GB/s of bandwidth, the card has enough juice for high-quality 1440p gaming, and is especially useful for users upgrading from older 1080p or early 1440p-focused GPUs.

Our review model, manufactured by PowerColor, features a triple-fan cooler, a full-length backplate, two 8-pin PCIe power connectors, and a four-display output layout. It is a full-size card, so case fit still needs to be checked, but the design is simple. It also comes with DisplayPort 2.1a, HDMI 2.1b, AV1 encode/decode support, and the updated media engine.

In 3DMark, it beats the RTX 5060 Ti in Port Royal, Speed Way, and Steel Nomad, while landing closer to the RTX 5070 FE in some areas. Geekbench OpenCL also posted strong results, with the GRE scoring 136,742, very close to the RX 9070’s 138,463. AI and rendering results are more mixed. The GRE improves over the RX 9060 XT in Procyon image generation and Luxmark. However, NVIDIA still has an advantage in several AI-focused tests, especially INT8 image generation and text-generation workloads.

Overall, the Radeon RX 9070 GRE is best viewed as a 1440p gaming card first, with some creator and AI features adding a bit more value. The 12GB of VRAM is worth keeping in mind for long-term buyers, especially as newer games keep pushing texture quality and ray tracing demands higher. The synthetic graphics results are the card’s strongest argument, and on that basis, it is a capable 1440p part. The harder question is price. At $549, it asks the same price the RX 9070 launched at, and with the RX 9070 now listed at $619, the two sit close enough that the GRE only makes clear sense if it picks up a street discount or the RX 9070 stays scarce. For gamers who want a noticeable 1440p upgrade without moving to the RX 9070 XT or RTX 5070 Ti tier, the GRE is worth a look, but we would shop the price against the RX 9070 before committing.

Product Page – RX 9070 GRE

The post AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE Review: 12GB RDNA 4 for 1440p Gaming appeared first on StorageReview.com.