An Intel Celeron 1200 (Tualatin) was revived from the dead following an intricate bit of repair work by Bits und Bolts. The quarter-century-old chip looked like it had a fatal injury, with one of the pins missing and the underlying pad ripped off. As things stood, a system with this close relative of the Pentium III installed simply wouldn’t boot. However, thanks to careful digging “deep into the substrate” and some delicate preparation work, the enthusiast managed to solder on a donor pin and get this CPU running again – and then overclocked it by 33%.

As the Celeron 1200’s missing pin was a data pin (D47), this was a definite fix-or-be-damned situation. Sometimes CPUs can have a pin or two missing, and they will work anyway. I’ve seen CPUs shrug off such missing connections when several remaining pins duplicate a function – power or ground pins, for example.

Bits und Bolts started the repair process with a close-up of the serious-looking damage. Then we see the missing pin area after they have apparently “dug a hole” so that the work/issue can be seen more clearly. Zoomed-in images show that there were several layers of copper exposed from under the green surface. The new pin must be connected solely to the central circular area you can see, and not accidentally connect with any of the copper planes surrounding it. Thus, the TechTuber started by applying solder mask to this area. Remember, these pins are very small, and it would have been an intricate job to mask the surrounding area solidly yet cleanly.

While the solder mask surrounding the Intel Celeron 1200’s vacant pin cured, Bits und Bolts harvested a few pins from another Tualatin chip that was “definitely broken.” Returning to the CPU under repair, it was time to add flux, then try to ‘tin’ the central circular copper area to which the donor pin would be soldered.

Soldering the donor pin went smoothly, leaving it perfectly in position and upright. You can definitely see which pin has been added by Bits und Bolts, but after nervously adding the repaired Celeron 1200 to a socket, the TechTuber was relieved that everything mated cleanly.

Instead of firing up the computer with the repaired processor installed straight away, the tech tinkerer took a few readings with their multimeter. There were no obvious issues. At last, the moment of truth came, and the patched-up processor-packing PC system booted without issues. Bits und Bolts commented that this was the first time they’d repaired a processor pin issue that looked so grave. The end of the video sees the CPU tested in various benchmarks, including SiSoft Sandra. Moreover, it was even overclocked by 33%, stable at 1,600 MHz.

Following the launch of AMD's EPYC 'Venice' CPUs in July, AMD extended the performance claims for its upcoming generation of server chips on Friday. The high-level claim hasn't changed. AMD still says a 96-core, high-frequency Venice chip is around 20% faster than Nvidia's 88-core Vera in SPEC CPU 2026's Integer Rate test. However, the company went into far greater detail about the benchmarks in a new white paper.

There are several configuration differences depending on the benchmark throughout AMD's white paper, and although we'll call out those differences here to the best of our ability, we don't have all of the details. For the Vera comparison, in particular, AMD is mixing data from different sources, and in some cases, using different major releases of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC). That can have a substantial impact on performance, so keep your salt shaker handy.

First up are results in SPEC CPU 2026 with the intrate test, looking at total throughput. These are older numbers, gathered in July with GCC 15.2. The intrate test runs multiple copies of an application on the same CPU, and the SOP is to run one copy per thread. Presumably, that's what AMD did here, but the white paper doesn't clarify, even in the footnotes.

The 256-core 9996 is 2.37x faster than the Intel Xeon 6980P and 2.24x faster than Vera according to the slide. The white paper clarifies the mystery 9006 CPU is the 256-core flagship. Perhaps most impressive is AMD's gen-on-gen comparison. According to these results, the 9996 is around 78% faster than last-gen's 192-core EPYC 9965.

Although the high-level results bring in data from Intel and AWS, much of the white paper focused squarely on the comparison between Venice and Vera. AMD broke down the individual subtests of SPEC CPU 2026 intrate in the white paper, which you can see below.

The comparison looks good for AMD, naturally, though there are a few wrinkles in the configuration. AMD is testing a down-cored EPYC 9996, dropping from 256 cores to 96 cores. It made no mention of power budget, but when AMD originally shared SPEC numbers, the 96-core model had access to the same 600W as the 256-core model — AMD's 96-core, high-frequency Venice SKU tops out at 500W. More consequential is the compiler, however. AMD is using GCC 16.1 and comparing the results to the ones Nvidia shared in its Vera white paper. Nvidia used GCC 15.2.

Michael Larabel over at Phoronix has a nice write-up about the difference between GCC 15 and 16, but the short story is that there are performance differences, not always for the better. GCC 16 takes longer to compile due to better optimizations, hence the lower scores on the GCC and LLVM compilations above. However, that leads to faster binaries. By how much depends on the flags, software, and a whole host of other factors. Regardless, it's not best practice to compare benchmarks using two different compiler versions. It makes sense that AMD used GCC 16.1 — it includes support for Zen 6 — but ideally Vera would also be on GCC 16.1.

Speaking of Phoronix, AMD pulled some data for the publication's initial, controlled testing of Vera. Above, you can see the Stream, an industry-standard benchmark for measuring memory bandwidth. Again, AMD is using a down-cored 9996 from 256 cores to 96, and offering it a 600W power budget. Still, this is an impressive showing, as Vera absolutely clobbered the competition in the publication’s original Stream results. Here, AMD is ahead by about 18%, with per-core performance about 8% ahead.

Breaking out of Vera, AMD also showed performance in cloud workloads, including database, Java, and cryptography. Once again, the gen-on-gen comparison stands out, as AMD was already leading in these workloads with its last-gen chips. AMD ran these tests itself, rather than relying on third-party data, though the Graviton5 results came from an AWS cloud instance.

Similarly, in HPC workloads, AMD furthers its lead over Intel's flagship Granite Rapids-AP offering. Intel's next-gen data center CPUs, codenamed Diamond Rapids, are set to be released next year.

Finally, we have "agentic AI workload performance," which uses actual benchmarks for comparison, despite what the names in the chart above suggest. From left to right, AMD used NGINX, TPCx-AI kit, FAISS, TPC-H and TPC-C, and a replay of a multi-persona agent. For TPC-H and TPC-C, AMD says it derived workloads from those benchmarks, so the results here aren't comparable to published results.

Although looking at benchmark results is always interesting, it doesn't say much in the context of a server deployment, at least at the scale that AMD is targeting. Peak performance is only one of the major factors that go into server deployments, after all, and even then, performance can vary wildly depending on what software you're running and how it's built.

Still, Venice looks impressive, perhaps more so in the gen-on-gen comparison than any competitive comparison. Hopefully that bodes well for AMD's future Zen 6 rollout on consumer desktops, but we'll have to wait until Team Red has more to share before drawing any conclusions on that front.

Intel's Nova Lake CPUs are no stranger to leaks. We've been talking about the processors for close to two years now, with rumors swirling about bLLC and a 52-core flagship for well over a year. However, this week (and this month more broadly), we've seen leaks hit a fever pitch, suggesting that Intel is finally gearing up to release a generation of processors that's been the zeitgeist for over 24 months.

Intel hasn't shied away from discussing Nova Lake, with Intel's enthusiast channel VP Robert Hallock telling Tom's Hardware Premium that it's one of the most important launches for the company ever. At the beginning of the year, Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan said that Nova Lake would launch in the second half of 2026, and despite expected hubbub about delays/cancellations, that's the North Star Intel itself has set. So, that's also going to be our North Star here.

There are three stories that have come out over the past week and a half. First, a screenshot of some high-level details about Nova Lake surfaced online, showing the launch schedule and platform details. The slide in question is almost certainly from one of Intel's partners and not Intel itself.

Just in the past few days, we've also seen a barrage of Z990 motherboards from ASRock surface in the NBD shipping database, as well as some entries in the SiSoftware database for a next-gen HP EliteBook X sporting an unknown Intel processor.

An increase in the number of leaks/rumors, especially those that are more than a known leaker writing up a post on X, usually points to an imminent launch. We've heard about Nova Lake for over two years, yes, but now we're seeing more concrete details. In addition to the shipping manifest, snapped slide, and SiSoftware results, we also saw two Z990 motherboards ourselves at Computex earlier this year, with a third rumored. We will not predict the Nova Lake release date here. However, the launch is coming soon. That much we're confident in.

Intel's typical release cycle for desktop CPUs

In order to establish a timeline, we first need to look back. We could go back far, but we're cutting the timeline short here at Alder Lake. That was when Intel finally moved off 14nm, following generation after generation of either an underwhelming launch or a delayed one, and it's most relevant to what Intel is doing today.

The timeline above is fairly straightforward. Intel has, short of 2025, launched a new generation of desktop processors in the fall every year for the past five years. This annual cadence was even more intense previously; 7th-Gen and 8th-Gen CPUs were both released in 2017, and 9th-Gen in 2018. Then, Intel took a year off and followed up with 10th-Gen in 2020 and 11th-Gen in early 2021. Keep in mind that we're talking about desktop CPU launches with a new microarchitecture here. Obviously, Intel has released a ton of other products in between the gaps.

The interesting bit about the timeline is actually the end with Arrow Lake Refresh. When we spoke to Robert Hallock earlier this year, he told us that a team that was "pretty much completely different" worked on Arrow Lake Refresh compared to Arrow Lake. That might explain the strangely large gap between Arrow Lake and Arrow Lake Refresh. Even looking at the Arrow Lake and Arrow Lake Refresh stacks side-by-side, it's obvious that a different mentality went into how they were positioned in the market. That team is in in-place now, and Hallock told us the team is "moving faster than we ever have in product, in release cadence."

Don't take Hallock's comments about Intel moving faster than ever at face value — he was probably being at least a little hyperbolic — but the sentiment is clear. Following the poor reception of Arrow Lake, Intel reorganized and set a new roadmap in motion that extends out to 2030, and now, that roadmap is being executed, starting earlier this year with Arrow Lake Refresh. That sets up Arrow Lake Refresh similar to 11th-Gen Rocket Lake, serving as somewhat of a stopgap before the next generation properly arrives (that is, thankfully, where the comparisons between Arrow Lake Refresh and Rocket Lake end).

Back to Nova Lake. Earlier this year at Computex, we saw two Z990 motherboards, one of which we confirmed was not a finalized unit. The complete development process takes generally four to six months for a motherboard, and you can add another two months or so on top of that for channel sales, as pallets of PCBs are loaded onto ships and swim across the Pacific Ocean. That was in June.

The shipping manifest that surfaced this week showed shipments in July for ASRock. Critically, it also shows shipments from two different sources: Taiwan and Vietnam. Given what we saw at Computex and the two different sources for ASRock, we're firmly past the early prototype and engineering validation stage of motherboard design. Assuming everything goes according to plan, that means Z990 motherboards should be ready to go on store shelves by no later than October or November.

Keep in mind that does not mean Nova Lake will launch in October or November, just that motherboards will most likely be ready by then. This aligns with what motherboard vendors told us earlier this year, with some brands pointing to Q3 but most to Q4 for a Z990 rollout.

Parsing the details about Nova Lake so far

Currently, there are two camps when it comes to when Nova Lake will release. Some say it'll arrive this year, likely in Q4, while others say CES 2027 in January of next year. As we wrote earlier in the article, we will not predict the Nova Lake release date. However, we will side with one of the camps here as more likely based on what we've seen so far.

Given everything we've seen, a late 2026 launch is more likely. The strongest evidence of that is the comment from Tan earlier this year, where the executive said Nova Lake is "coming at the end of 2026." The critical context is that Tan made that comment as part of his prepared remarks, preceding the actual financials that you hear in an earnings call. An earnings call is not a keynote, and making material promises you knowingly can't keep can land you in hot water.

Executives massage the truth all the time during earnings calls — that's half the reason there are prepared remarks ahead of the financials. However, that key detail about an end of 2026 launch isn't massaging the truth. It's a concrete claim devoid of weasel words and qualifiers. In addition, Intel's fiscal year aligns with a calendar year; when Tan said end of 2026, he meant end of 2026, regardless of fiscal or calendar year.

It's possible that something changed between now and January when that call took place. However, the timeline still lines up given the various motherboards that showed up between June and July of this year. At this point, Intel can slide the actual release date around by a bit, but not by months. Retailers aren't going to sit on pallets of motherboards with no home indefinitely.

The one wrinkle in this is the leaked slide you can see above, which claims Nova Lake will enter mass production in Q4, with a launch in Q1 2027. There are reasons to be skeptical of this slide, however. For starters, the slide doesn't say anything that hasn't been heavily rumored for months (sometimes even years) at this point: 52-core flagship, up to 288MB of bLLC, LGA 1954 socket, and multi-generation socket support. The strange bit is a mention of Hammer Lake at the bottom of the slide.

We've heard very little about Hammer Lake, and nothing that's passed muster for us to cover on Tom's Hardware. Even among the rumors, the launch has been pinned somewhere in the 2029/2030 range, if the lineup is even real to begin with. Regardless, Hammer Lake isn't what we'd expect to see next to Razor Lake — the generation rumored to follow Nova — and certainly not what we'd expect to see under a "Q4 2027+" badge.

That doesn't mean the slide is fake; it doesn't appear to be fake. There's some very critical context missing from it, though. It's a Chinese source, but did it come from an OEM? A distributor? A retailer? The validity of the slide changes dramatically depending on that. Further, we're only seeing maybe half of a single slide here. There's too much context missing to take this single slide and run with it as concrete truth.

At the very least, it fares poorly against prepared comments made by Intel's CEO, motherboards we've seen (and held) ourselves, and have circulated through photos online, and strong indications from Intel's motherboard partners that they'll be ready for a launch in Q4. Add on top of that the fact that Intel took 2025 completely off for new desktop launches (and its usual cadence of launching in the fall), and a Q4 rollout of Nova Lake looks far more likely.

Likely isn't the same as confirmed. We're still awaiting details on Nova Lake from Intel proper, and hopefully those will arrive soon. Given the anticipation Intel has already built around Nova Lake without a single performance claim or spec shared, we'll have a lot to talk about.

Intel won't launch a Nova Lake-S SKU with 12 Xe3P graphics cores, according to tipster Jaykihn, who originally flagged a beefed-up APU design with the Nova Lake architecture. The original SKU was said to come with 4 P-cores, 8 E-cores, and 4 LPE-cores, along with the 12 Xe3P cores, presumably offering an inexpensive onramp to a gaming desktop without a discrete GPU. Now, the leaker says that design is cancelled, and Intel intends to pick it back up with Razor Lake, the generation that will follow Nova Lake.

Originally, Intel's 12 Xe3P Nova Lake SKU was said to require 65W of dedicated power to drive the iGPU, necessitating the use of two VCCGT phases on the motherboard for integrated graphics. Intel's Arc B390 GPU, which is the 12 Xe3-core model available in Panther Lake and Arc G-series processors, has a thermal design that can sustain up to 80W. However, it's currently being used in Panther Lake machines and handhelds like MSI Claw 8 EX AI+ that have lower power targets.

The Xe3P architecture is slotted for use in Intel's Crescent Island AI accelerator, but it hasn't been announced for any other products yet. Xe3P supports a wide deployment of Xe cores (up to 32), a deeper XMX engine with support for low-precision data types like FP8 and FP4, an increased 512KB L1 cache per Xe core, and a new unified L2 cache (32MB on Crescent Island).

Even by desktop APU standards, an 80W iGPU is a beefy accelerator to have on the same package. In addition, Intel's Nova Lake stack is said to extend up to a 175W TDP with the rumored top-end 52-core SKU, meaning the full 12 Xe3P iGPU would likely only be possible lower down the stack (and maybe only in the 4 + 8 + 4 + 12 Xe design originally suggested).

Earlier in the year, rumors suggested Intel was working on a mobile APU to counter AMD's Strix/Gorgon Halo products, featuring a large pool of unified memory and a large iGPU, dubbed Nova Lake AX. Now, the rumor mill suggests Intel will recycle the Nova Lake CPU cores for Razor Lake AX on mobile while pushing a larger iGPU.

*Specs rumored, unconfirmed by Intel

Intel has told us that Nova Lake is one of the most important desktop CPU launches for the company ever, following on the heels of the mediocre Arrow Lake rollout. Perhaps the biggest addition to the lineup is rumored to be bLLC, or big last-level cache, which is said to show up on select SKUs to counter AMD's X3D assault among the best CPUs for gaming. The company has yet to confirm that bLLC is even possible with its current packaging capabilities, though enthusiast channel VP Robert Hallock hinted to Tom's Hardware that Intel has plans to address X3D in the next generation.

The main stack is rumored to climb up to 28 cores, with two additional dual-tile SKUs that can go as high as 52 cores. The dual-tile models look like a bid for HEDT, perhaps competing with AMD's Threadripper CPUs, though it's not clear how Intel will position its dual-tile models yet.

Earlier this month, a leaked slide gave us a glimpse into Intel's launch plans for Nova Lake. The slide suggested Intel will announce the main stack (up to 28 cores) in Q4 of this year, with the chips arriving in Q1 2027. Intel will apparently follow up later in the year with the 52-core model. This aligns with what we've heard from our sources about Intel's Nova Lake rollout.

Alongside Nova Lake, Intel will introduce the new LGA1954 socket, along with the flagship Z990 chipset. We've already seen multiple Z990 motherboards in the flesh, suggesting Intel is preparing for a Nova Lake release in short order.

For those seeking the highest performance for gaming, AMD’s Ryzen 7 9850X3D is currently the best CPU money can buy. If you’re planning to upgrade or build a new PC, now might be a good time to pick one up, as Newegg is selling the 9850X3D for $484, around $15 less than its launch price. The deal also includes a 240mm Cooler Master AIO liquid cooler, valued at $79.99, along with a copy of Onimusha: Way of the Sword worth $69.99, both included as free gifts.

• Check out the deal on Newegg

Announced at CES 2026, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is essentially a higher-binned version of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. It retains the same 8-core, 16-thread configuration and 4.2 GHz base clock as its predecessor, but gets a higher 5.6 GHz boost clock. The chip comes with the same 104MB of total cache, including 96MB of 3D V-Cache, which is the key ingredient behind its strong gaming performance. It also shares the same 120W default TDP and uses the AM5 platform with DDR5 memory support, making it compatible with a wide range of existing 800- and 600-series AMD motherboards.

In our in-depth testing of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, we found that it was only 3.3% faster than the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. But a win is a win, and that performance edge puts the CPU at the top of our 16-game 1080p FPS performance geomean, beating the more expensive Ryzen 9 9900X3D and 9950X3D. Although it loses out to Intel in some productivity workloads, the less complex 8-core configuration packed into a single CCD results in lower power draw. As you can see from our results, the peak power consumption is around 170W, making it much easier to cool.

With the included 240mm AIO liquid cooler, you should be able to keep the Ryzen 7 9850X3D well under control during gaming and moderate workloads, although it may run warmer under heavy multi-core workloads. At its sale price of $484, you’re paying less than its actual launch price while getting two useful extras at no additional cost. That makes this a worthwhile deal for anyone looking to build a high-end gaming PC around AMD’s gaming-focused platform.

Architectural enhancements and significantly higher clock speeds enable Apple's A20 Pro application processor (AP), used in the company's latest iPhones, to deliver not only a substantial generation-to-generation performance boost but also to outperform leading desktop CPUs from AMD and Intel by up to a whopping 32% in the single-thread Geekbench 7 benchmark, setting the record for the highest single-thread performance. While high-end PC CPUs still have more oomph for multi-threaded workloads, the tiny A20 Pro is still faster than mainstream laptop CPUs even when many threads are involved.

Fastest smartphone SoC

Apple's A20 Pro system-on-chip (SoC) delivers 4,006 points in single-thread and 11,460 points in the multi-thread Geekbench 7 benchmark, which represents a 23.3% higher ST performance and 27.1% higher MT performance compared to the immediate predecessor, the Apple A19 Pro, according to an early submission (which may or may not demonstrate performance of actual A20 Pro-based products, so take the results with a grain of salt).

The new SoC delivers the highest generation-over-generation performance improvement for Apple's smartphone processors in years and is currently the highest-performing mobile AP. Furthermore, the A20 Pro beats AMD’s 16-core Ryzen 9 9950X3D by 26% and Intel’s Core i9-14900KS by 32% in single-thread performance.

When it comes to the single-thread Geekbench 7 benchmark, Apple's A20 Pro outperforms its closest rivals — Qualcomm's Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen5 (SM8850) and Xiaomi's XRing O3 — by 31.5% - 33.7%. In fact, both SM8850 and XRing O3 perform on par with Apple's two-years-old A18 Pro. The six-core A20 Pro also beats the eight-core SM8850 by 12.2% in multi-thread workloads in Geekbench 7 and offers roughly similar multi-thread performance to the 10-core XRing O3.

Compared with other flagship smartphone processors, Apple's A20 Pro holds a commanding lead in Geekbench 7. It is 76% faster in single-thread and 48% faster in multi-thread performance than MediaTek's eight-core Dimensity 9400, while it nearly doubles the performance of Google's eight-core Tensor G5, with advantages of 99% and 96%, respectively. But the most striking gap of A20 Pro is with Huawei’s Kirin 9050 Pro: Apple's flagship is 290% faster in single-thread and 139% faster in multi-thread Geekbench 7 workloads.

A great laptop CPU

While Apple's A20 Pro continues to feature 'only' six cores like many generations before it, this time around the processor packs two 'super' desktop-class general-purpose cores running at up to 4.93 GHz, four efficiency cores running at lower clocks, and a memory interface that delivers +50% higher memory bandwidth compared to its predecessor (allegedly using a 96-bit memory I/O).

The architectural enhancements of advanced CPU cores running at nearly 5 GHz, along with a more capable memory subsystem, not only enable a massive generational performance uptick, but also allow the chip to offer unbeatable single-thread performance and massive multi-thread performance that is comparable to that of laptop CPUs, including previous-generation laptop CPUs from Apple.

Indeed, Apple's A20 Pro is 7% faster than M5, 20% faster than M4, and 43% faster than M3 in single-thread performance. Its six-core design cannot match its multi-thread performance, trailing the 10-core M5 by 39% and the 10-core M4 by 27%. Yet, it is only 5% behind the eight-core M3.

When compared to Intel's Panther Lake, the A20 Pro is 48.7% faster in single-thread performance than the flagship Core Ultra X9 388H, yet the 16-core Panther Lake processor is 63% faster in multi-thread workloads. Against lower-end Panther Lake parts, the A20 Pro is 74% – 88% faster in ST workloads and even leads the Core Ultra 5 325 and Ultra 5 332 by 3% and 64%, respectively, in multi-thread benchmarks.

The particularly striking results of Apple's A20 Pro are the 26% – 33% single-thread advantage over flagship AMD and Intel desktop CPUs, though the desktop processors remain dramatically faster in multi-thread workloads.

First 2nm smartphone SoC

When Apple transitioned to TSMC's N3B (3nm-class) process technology from N4 (4nm-class) with its A17 Pro SoC back in 2023, the new processor was barely 9.8% faster in ST and 6.8% faster than its predecessor A16 Bionic. By contrast, with its first 2nm smartphone SoC made on TSMC's N2 node, Apple offers a massive performance boost over the A19 Pro produced on N3P.

Indeed, Apple's A19 Pro packs two 'desktop-class' 'super cores' whose design is 'driven in part by increased front-end bandwidth, a new cache hierarchy, and enhanced branch prediction,' as Apple described its 'super cores' inside the M5 processor earlier this year. Such architectural enhancements obviously massively increase performance in single-thread workloads at the cost of increased die size, transistor count, and power. Apparently, N2 enabled Apple's designers to squeeze two desktop-grade CPU cores into a smartphone SoC.

Speaking of M5, it is noteworthy that A20 Pro delivers 7.1% higher single-thread performance than M5 while running at a clock speed that is 7.1% higher than that of M5, which is probably a good indicator that Apple's A19 Pro uses the same 'super cores' as M5.

While some may consider using PC-grade general-purpose CPU cores in a smartphone chip an overkill, Apple is known for using and supporting PC technologies in its mobile SoCs (NVMe, PCIe, DisplayPort-over-USB-C, hardware virtualization, etc.). Keeping in mind that Apple also uses A-series SoCs inside iPads and inexpensive laptops, it makes a great sense to have these technologies in its smartphone application processors. With desktop-grade cores inside the A20 Pro, the company greatly expands use cases of these CPUs while also solidifying their position in traditional segments that they will address in the coming quarters.

Without any doubts, Apple's transition to TSMC's N2 starts with a massive general-purpose performance increase, driven by 'fat' super cores and a memory subsystem featuring 50% more bandwidth compared to the A19 Pro. Over the next few weeks, we are also going to learn how Apple upgraded the GPU, NPU, and other aspects of the A20 Pro, and we are going to find out whether the upgrades are as impressive or incremental. In any case, so far, the A20 Pro looks very good.

AMD has officially launched the Ryzen 5 5500F and Ryzen 5 7500, two strong contenders for the best CPUs on the market if you're on a budget. Both are hexa-core chips, with the Ryzen 5 5500F featuring AMD's Zen 3 execution cores and the Ryzen 5 7500 using the newer Zen 4 execution cores. The Ryzen 5 5500F and Ryzen 5 7500, priced at $99 and $189, respectively, are available at U.S. retailers starting today.

The Ryzen 5 5500F, despite its similar model name to the Ryzen 5 5500, belongs to a different family in AMD's portfolio. The Ryzen 5 5500F hails from the Ryzen 5000 series (codenamed Vermeer), which uses a multi-chiplet architecture. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 5 5500 comes from the Ryzen 5000G series (codenamed Cezanne), which uses a monolithic die design.

Therefore, it is more sound to call the Ryzen 5 5500F a lower-binned version of the Ryzen 5 5600, rather than an iGPU-less variant of the Ryzen 5 5500, which lacks integrated graphics to begin with. The distinction matters because the Ryzen 5 5500F is closer to the Ryzen 5 5600, albeit with a 500 MHz lower boost clock speed and half the L3 cache.

The Ryzen 5 5600, which launched at $199, now retails for around $159, making the new Ryzen 5 5500F approximately 38% more affordable. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 5 5500, which debuted at $159, has lost substantial value over the years. OEM tray versions of the Ryzen 5 5500 now start at just $74, so it is still the most cost-effective entry point into the AM4 ecosystem. Compared to the Ryzen 5 5500, the Ryzen 5 5500F carries a 34% price premium. The latter justifies its higher cost with a slightly higher boost clock speed, which translates to better gaming performance, and support for PCIe 4.0, unlocking faster SSDs and graphics cards.

Ryzen 5 5500F and Ryzen 5 7500 Specifications

When it comes to the Ryzen 5 7500, little mystery surrounds its place in AMD's product stack. True to its name, the Ryzen 5 7500 is the same processor as the Ryzen 5 7500F, which launched three years ago, but with integrated Radeon graphics. This small addition suits users who need basic display output and do not plan to spend money on a discrete graphics card. Apart from the integrated graphics, all core specifications remain identical between the two models.

As a result, the difference between the Ryzen 5 7600 and the Ryzen 5 7500 stands. The former boasts a 100 MHz higher base and boost clock, so performance is somewhat better in certain processor-intensive workloads or gaming scenarios. However, most users may not notice the difference.

The Ryzen 5 7500F hit the market at $179, but over time its retail price has dropped to about $157. In contrast, the Ryzen 5 7600 has held its value over the years, falling only slightly from its original MSRP of $229 to around $226. As a result, the Ryzen 5 7500 positions itself as a mid-point option, priced 16% lower than the Ryzen 5 7600 and 20% above the Ryzen 5 7500F.

The Ryzen 5 7500 makes sense in this market because not everyone is a gamer, so integrated graphics mean you do not have to spend a fortune on a discrete graphics card at today's ridiculous prices. However, because it runs on AMD's AM5 platform, the Ryzen 5 7500 is still bound by the sky-high cost of DDR5.

We reported on the new Apple A20 Pro system-on-a-chip (SoC) for smartphones yesterday, an integral attraction within Apple’s first foldable, the iPhone Duo, and in the iPhone 18 Pro devices. Now the first A20 Geekbench 6 benchmark results are starting to pop up online, and they’re very impressive, particularly in single-core performance. If the result spotted by Longhorn is a typical one, the 4,719 single-core and 12,677 multi-core scores mean the new A20 is around 25% faster than its predecessor. Its single-core score can also make some of the best PC CPUs look anemic.

Apple’s official performance claims are interesting, as usual, but we’re always happy to see the third-party performance indicators start to emerge ahead of independent reviews. Heralding its new 2nm silicon yesterday, Apple might have actually understated the boost the A20 can deliver, with the official line about this “desktop-class” processor being the “fastest CPU in a smartphone,” and a claim that it is ‘just’ 20% faster than the previous gen. However, Geekbench isn’t the best indicator of real-world performance, and this is just a sample of one to sprinkle salt upon.

What are numbers without relevant comparisons, though? For more perspective on Apple’s newest silicon, which might also be thrown into a new Neo laptop (or desktop) in the coming months, check out the table below.

Above, we’ve pitted the Apple A19 Pro from last year’s iPhone 17 Pro as the second comparison column entrant. Apple has worked on multiple angles to deliver improvements over last year. It says that it has both new super-cores and efficiency cores in play. Then there’s the refined 2nm process and the faster clocks, too.

For some wider context, we’ve also tabulated one of Apple’s newest M5 computer chips, a modern Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite X2 laptop chip, and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2, for a fun desktop PC angle. Less fun is the comparison with the Asus Zephyrus G16 2024 laptop I’m using now, with an AMD Ryzen AI HX 370 chip. Its Geekbench 6 scores of roughly 2,800 / 14,500 are easily outclassed by Apple’s new smartphone processor in 1T tests, but retain a little dignity by winning by ~1,800 points in nT tests.

Apple is opening up pre-orders for its new iPhones with A20 silicon shortly, with retail release on Friday, September 18. It usually lifts review embargoes a few days before retail. We should therefore see a broader range of benchmarks and tests from good sources in the coming week.

Apple has a new top system-on-a-chip for smartphones, the A20 Pro. The new processor debuted at Apple's iPhone event today — the first event led by newly minted chief executive officer John Ternus — alongside a new in-house modem (the C2).

The A20 Pro is Apple's first 2-nanometer chip in an iPhone. (Its first-ever 2 nm chip is the M6, which the company announced in August and which will debut in the Mac Mini later this month). Like the M6, the A20 features dual neural engines, new CPU and GPU cores.

The A20 Pro will power the new foldable iPhone Duo, along with the iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max.

The new SOC boasts a 6-core CPU with two of the company's super-cores (20% faster than last generation), and there are also four efficiency cores with neural accelerators. Apple is calling this a "desktop-class" processor and the "fastest CPU in a smartphone."

The 7-core GPU has a 40% boost gen-over-gen with increased bandwidth, along with new neural accelerators that the company says allows for twice-as-fast FP8 compute.

The two neural engines have a combined 32 total cores. There's a 50% increase in memory bandwidth on the chip, which Apple says is the widest memory interface in an iPhone.

Apple has also changed the packaging, with the silicon dies placed in a way that removes memory from the thermal path of the SOC, allowing the silicon to attach directly to the vapor chamber. That vapor chamber has a three times larger surface area over the 17 Pro, and also includes more graphite and copper along with 80% recycled stainless steel.

The company claims that this will allow for up to 40% sustained performance over the iPhone 17 Pro and 2x sustained performance over the 16 Pro.

Apple says that A20 Pro's efficiencies and new battery designs allow for better longevity. The company claims the Pro will get 36 hours of video playback, and 45 hours on Pro Max video. Using a proprietary test based on data from how people use their phones, Apple claims 24 hours per charge on the 18 Pro and 30 hours on the Pro Max.

Beyond the SOC, Apple is also using a new C2 cellular modem, replacing Qualcomm. Apple claims that C2 "delivers meaningfully faster uploads when compared to C1X while consuming 15 percent less energy," and also adds mmWave support in the United States. Both phones also feature the N1 networking chip for Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 6, and Thread.

The iPhone 18 Pro will start at $1,199, while the Pro Max will start at $1,299. The phones will be available on September 18. The phones also feature an updated Dynamic Island and a 48-megapixel fusion camera with a variable aperture, plus customizable settings such as white balance and cinematic effects that can be added after capture.

Apple's other new silicon was the S11, a chip for the Apple Watch Series 12 and Ultra 4.

iPhone Duo

The iPhone Duo, Apple's long-awaited foldable phone, will also use the A20 Pro.

The foldable will be Apple's first phone with a FaceTime camera behind the display, and Apple detailed the hinge and aerospace-grade titanium construction. The Duo is IP68-rated for dust and water resistance. It comes in "star white," as well as "night sky" (a dark blue).

The OS, iOS 27, will allow for docks and controls to live on the sides of the system, putting them near your hand. When opened, it's the thinnest iPhone ever and has the largest screen on an iPhone at 7.6 inches. Later this year, Apple Pencil will be supported on the Duo on both screens.

Apple will use Touch ID for biometrics, jettisoning the Face ID from more recent slab-style phones. Apple said this is the best way to go because it's available whether open or closed, and you can enroll multiple fingers.

The phone supports multiple "poses," including partial folds, and a standby mode when used in a tent-style pose — even when it's not charging.

Apple's internal display has an anti-glare display to "minimize crease visibility," which the company also claims feels premium under your fingers, with a titanium plate supporting the panel, along with a hinge with over 100 components. Samsung also released a phone with a minimal crease in the Galaxy Z Fold 8 earlier this year, but we'll have to see how reviewers compare the two screens.

A20 Pro has a new display engine that supports both displays. Like the 18 Pro and 18 Pro Max, Apple is using the C2 cellular modem over Qualcomm's in the iPhone Duo.

The iPhone Duo is eSIM-only everywhere in the world, maximizing battery space. Each side of the phone has its own battery, which operates as one with software. Apple is claiming up to 31 hours of video playback on the inner display and 44 hours on the outer display. Using its own model, Apple claims 24 hours when using "both screens equally."

The phone has a two-camera system. The main camera is a 48MP lens with up to 2x telephoto, while the other is an ultrawide lens. The 48MP camera is the same one on the 18 Pro, though without the variable aperture. The center-stage camera on the front is a 12MP camera. The inner display has an under-screen FaceTime camera.

The iPhone Duo starts at $1,999 for 256GB, and goes up to 2TB. Pre-orders start on October 16, and the phone will launch on October 23.

Following an early access period that included over 60,000 participants, auto-overclocking tool Hypertune has released its Gaming Performance Engineering platform, which is built on top of Intel's Extreme Tuning Utility (XTU) SDK and developed in partnership with Intel. The company claims the utility can boost frame rates by up to 60%, though you shouldn't expect that as the norm. The tool includes automated CPU and GPU overclocking, as well as customizable Windows features, network optimization, and game-specific optimizations.

Hypertune partnered with Intel to build the tool, which the company says "evaluates each supported system individually" before optimizing rather than relying on generalized profiles. In its press release, Hypertune says it collaborated with famed overclocker SkatterBencher (Pieter Plaisier) to refine the software. We've reached out to Plaisier to confirm their involvement.

Automated tuning programs usually don't work as well as advertised, and we haven't had the chance to test Hypertune ourselves yet. Especially on more recent hardware, expect performance gains to be minor. Hypertune shared some of its internal benchmarks to back up the claim, showcasing the actual test systems it used, the numbers it gathered, and what each step of Hypertune contributed to the performance increase.

Hypertune tested two systems: one with a Core Ultra 9 285K and an RTX 5090, and another with a Core i7-14700K and an RTX 3080. For the 285K system, the team saw an 18.9% improvement in Homeworld 3 and a 28.2% improvement in Tomb Raider. For the 14700K system, the boost was up to 9.8% in Rainbow Six Siege and 4.3% in Marvel Rivals.

Notably, these results are with Hypertune's Game Hub disabled. Game Hub automatically applies a graphics settings profile to select games, leading to massive increases in performance. Naturally, tweaking your own graphics settings in the same way leads to the same result.

In Homeworld 3, you can see how each step in the process impacted performance, with CPU tunning contributing the single biggest increase in performance. As shown by Marvel Rivals in Hypertune's data, some games will see little to no benefit from Hypertune, though select titles with certain hardware may see a significant performance increase. In this case, the Core Ultra 9 285K has plenty of room for overclocking, and Homeworld 3 is particularly sensitive to the CPU, so the uplift makes sense.

Elsewhere, the gains aren't as pronounced. In Rainbow Six Siege, you can see that Hypertune contributed about a 9.8% jump in performance, though the vast majority of the improvement comes through Game Hub, where Hypertune changes in-game settings.

In a press release, Hypertune founder Austin Copeland wrote that the team was "not trying to build a tool for overclockers," suggesting it's aimed toward users who may not know about specific settings (i.e., the Balanced power plan on dual-CCD X3D CPUs, or HAGS for DLSS Frame Generation). Copeland was previously a coach for eSports organization TSM, coaching Valorant teams under the name "Apex."

Hypertune works through Intel's XTU SDK, and the company says its optimizations are non-destructive and fully reversible. The software is mainly targeted toward competitive titles (naturally, given Copeland's background), but it can apply optimizations globally across the system. Hypertune says it's safe to use with anti-cheat software, including Riot Vanguard, Easy Anti-Cheat, and BattlEye.

Although there are plenty of free tools that claim to optimize your system, Hypertune isn't among them. It's a subscription service, available for either $9.99 per month or $59.99 per year. In addition to software, Hypertune offers its "expert tuning" service for $80, where a technician will remote into your machine and manually tune it. On the subscription front, Hypertune offers a 7-day free trial.

Hypertune looks like one of the more robust automated overclocking tools we've seen, but it's worth highlighting that, in most cases, these tools don't do anything you can't accomplish yourself. If you're looking for a starting point, make sure to read our guides on how to overclock your graphics card and how to overclock your CPU.