(Pocket-lint) – Samsung has announced a new family of Galaxy Books for 2021. But with three different models in the line-up, how are you to choose one from the other?
We’re diving through the details to help you figure out which is the best laptop for you.
Price and availability
Galaxy Book: From £699
Galaxy Book Pro: From £1099 (13.3in), £1199 (15.6in)
Galaxy Book Pro 360: From £1199 (13.3in), £1249 (15.6in)
The Galaxy Book is the most accessible with the 8/256GB Core i5 model starting at £699 in the UK – internationally with the Core i3 model you’ll likely find a cheaper starting price.
There’s a jump to the Galaxy Book Pro starting at £1099 for the Core i5 8/512GB or Core i5 8/256GB LTE model 13.3-inch.
The Galaxy Book Pro 360 is the most expensive, starting at £1199 for the Core i5 8/512GB 13.3-inch.
All models will be available to pre-order from 28 April, with general availability from 14 May.
Design and build
Galaxy Book (15.6in): 356.6 x 229.1 x 15.4mm, 1.55kg
Galaxy Book Pro:
13.3in: 304.4 x 199.8 x 11.2mm, 0.87kg
15.6in: 355.4 x 225.8 x 11.7mm, 1.05kg
Galaxy Book Pro 360:
13.3in: 302.5 x 202.0 x 11.5mm, 1.04kg
15.6in: 354.85 x 227.97 x 11.9mm, 1.39kg
All of the new Galaxy Book models sport a similar design: they are thin and light, finished with matte colours spanning Mystic Blue/Navy and Mystic Silver, with other colours available in other regions.
They all use premium materials for a solid finish, with the Galaxy Book and the Galaxy Book Pro 360 both finished in aluminium bodywork, while the lightest of the lot – the Galaxy Book Pro – also uses magnesium alloy to keep the weight down.
The Galaxy Book Pro 360 has a slight twist on the format, with a display that’s a lot more flexible, able to laid flat or folded into tablet mode for more versatile working.
The Galaxy Book is the cheapest model, but is noticeably thicker than the others, and heavier too.
There’s reasonable physical connectivity across these notebooks, each having at least two USB-C connections with the Pro models also offering Thunderbolt 4 through one of these ports.
The Galaxy Book Pro 360 misses out on USB-A, while both other models offer this older port for convenience – as well as HDMI for external displays.
All models also support microSD, some offering SIM slots for LTE versions.
Display
Galaxy Book: 15.6in, LED, FHD
Galaxy Book Pro: 13.3 or 15.6in, AMOLED, FHD
Galaxy Book Pro 360: 13.3 in 15.6in, Super AMOLED, FHD
There Pro models take a step ahead of the regular Galaxy Book in offering AMOLED displays, while the entry-level device is an LED display.
That means the two Pro models will offer the better quality display with richer visuals, also offering better calibrated displays for more accurate colour representation.
All offer the same full HD resolution – 1920 x 1080 pixels – but it’s the Galaxy Book Pro 360 that then goes a little further.
We’ve already mentioned that the Pro 360 has a more flexible display, but it’s also the only touchscreen in the range – and it supports the S Pen, meaning you can do a lot more with it.
Unfortunately, there’s no where to store the S Pen in the chassis of the Pro 360, so you’ll just have to tuck that into your pocket.
Galaxy Book Pro 360: 11-gen Intel Core i5/i7, Iris Xe, 8-16GB RAM, 256-512GB storage, 63/68Wh battery
All the new Galaxy Book models are based around 11-gen Intel Core hardware, offering i3, i5 or i7 models depending on the region. In the UK, only i5 and i7 models will be offered, so check local availability.
RAM starts at 8GB with 16GB an option, while SSD storage starts at 256GB with 512GB the step-up.
All have onboard Intel Iris Xe graphics.
The Galaxy Book has the smallest battery at 54Wh, while the Pro models move to 63Wh for the 13.3-inch model, or 68Wh for the 15.6-inch models.
All models will charge through USB-C, with a 65W charger meaning you can charge all your Samsung devices with just the one charger.
Summing up
Samsung is offering good-looking laptops in the Galaxy Book range, all with a quality finish and reasonable power on offer.
The real differences lie in the display, with the Galaxy Book Pro 360 offering functions that the others don’t – while the Galaxy Book is likely to be the premium workhorse of the trio, offering a lighter body for those on the move and a great looking display.
All run Windows 10 Home, all offer 720p front camera and dual array mics and all offer Dolby Atmos sound – with the Pro models getting AKG tuned speakers. Samsung is keen for these notebooks to work within the Samsung ecosystem efficiently, with easy switching for products like your Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro and syncing with your phone.
with two new Windows laptops: the Samsung Galaxy Book Pro and Samsung Galaxy Book Pro 360. Both the clamshell and the convertible options were announced at today’s Samsung Galaxy Unpacked event. They are available for pre-order now and will hit retail stores on May 14.
Both the Book Pro and Book Pro 360 will come in 13.3-inch and 15.6-inch versions, all of which will rely on intel’s Core i5 or Core i7 “Tiger Lake” processors and Iris Xe integrated graphics, and they will carry
Intel Evo
branding.
Samsung Galaxy Book Pro
Samsung Galaxy Book Pro 360
CPU
Up to 11th Gen Intel Core i7
Up to 11th Gen Intel Core i7
Graphics
Intel Iris Xe (Integrated)
Intel Iris Xe (Integrated)
RAM
Up to 16GB LPDDR4x
Up to 16GB LPDDR4x
Storage
Up to 512GB NVMe SSD
Up to 1TB NVMe SSD on 15.6-inch inch, Up to 512GB on 13.3-inch
Display
13.3 or 15.6-inch, 1920 x 1080, AMOLED
13.3 or 15.6-inch, 1920 x 1080, Super AMOLED touch
Networking
LTE (only in some countries, not the US, 13-inch), Wi-Fi 6E, Bluetooth 5.1
5G (optional, 13-inch), Wi-Fi 6E, Bluetooth 5.1
Battery
63 Wh (13-inch) / 68 Wh (15-inch)
63 Wh (13-inch) / 68 Wh (15-inch)
Starting Price
13.3-inch: $999, 15.6-inch: $1,099
13.3-inch: $1,199, 15.6-inch: $1,299
There are a number of other similarities between both laptops across the sizes. The whole line is using 1920 x 1080 AMOLED displays (though the Galaxy Book Pro 360’s Super AMOLED also incorporates touch), and they’re made of what Samsung calls 6000-series aluminum. Samsung is also bringing a “secret screen” technology to the laptops, which hampers viewing angles from sides when you are working on private documents. HP has included similar functionality in many of its business laptops for a few years under the name SureView.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Samsung)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Samsung)
The biggest differences between the two models are the networking options and ports. The Galaxy Book Pro will offer Wi-Fi 6E and, in the 13.3-inch option, LTE in some territories. But the Galaxy Book Pro 360’s 13.3-inch configuration will have optional 5G. The Book Pro has Thunderbolt 4, USB Type-C, USB Type-A 3.2, a 3.5mm headphone jack, a microSD card slot and a SIM card slot, while the Book PRo 360 ditches the USB 3.2 in favor of another Type-C port. Both use 65W gallium nitride (GaN) chargers for fast charging. The 15.6-inch Galaxy Book Pro 360 has the largest storage option at 1TB.
There are also differences in color. The Book Pro uses matte colors called mystic blue and mystic silver while the Book Pro 360 opts for a more metallic mystic navy and mystic bronze.
(Image credit: Samsung)
Samsung is touting how thin the laptops are. The Book Pro is 11.2 mm thin on the 13-incher and 11.7 mm on the 15.6-incher, while the Galaxy Book Pro 360 is slightly thicker at 11.5 mm and 11.9 mm, respectively. The smallest of the line, the Galaxy Book Pro 13, will weigh just 1.92 pounds.
The hardware also includes a redesigned keyboard, with scissor switches and rubber domes with 1 millimeter of travel which Samsung says is nearly silent.
Samsung is also emphasizing the two laptops for their spot in the Galaxy-branded ecosystem. That includes using Samsung Notes and PENUP to sync notes across devices, using Smart Switch to transfer files (a first on Samsung’s PCs) and Quick Share. A Galaxy Tab S7 can be used as a second monitor, and a Link to Windows feature will let you use up to five mobile apps on your laptop.
For those of us working from home, there’s a Studio Mode for improved video calling and intelligent noise cancelling to get rid of ambient sounds. Some of this is already built into other apps, but for those not familiar, these may be a nice touch.
The company is also bringing Samsung Care+ to PCs for the first time, allowing for up to two years of customer service and what it says are discounted repairs.
The Samsung Galaxy Book Pro will start at $999 for the 13-inch version and $1,099 for the 15.6 option. The Samsung Galaxy Book Pro 360 will start at $1,199 and $1,299 in the same screen sizes, but with touch support and an S Pen.
Matthew Wilson 1 day ago Featured Tech News, General Tech
MSI has been dabbling in the world of all-in-one PCs for a while now and this week, we’re getting some brand new models. Today, MSI announced the Modern AM241 and Modern AM271 series of all-in-one PCs, featuring Intel 11th Gen processors.
The new Modern 24 and 27 series PCs are designed with efficiency and productivity in mind, while also looking rather elegant. Each system comes with an OPS display for wide viewing angles and better colours. Under the hood, you’ll find an Intel 11th Gen Core series processor, with MSI offering up to an Intel Core i7-1165G7, but Core i3 and Core i5 configurations are also available.
In the table below, you can see the full specification list for the MSI Modern AM241 and AM271 PCs:
Specification
Modern AM241
Modern AM241T
Modern AM241P
Modern AM241TP
Modern AM271
Modern AM271P
CPU
Up to Intel® Core™ i7-1165G7
OS
Windows 10 Home – MSI recommends Windows 10 Pro for business
23.8″ IPS Grade Panel LED Backlight (1920*1080 FHD) with MSI Anti-Flicker technology
23.8″ IPS Grade Panel LED Backlight (1920*1080 FHD) with MSI Anti-Flicker technology
27″ IPS Grade Panel LED Backlight (1920*1080 FHD) with MSI Anti-Flicker technology
27″ IPS Grade Panel LED Backlight (1920*1080 FHD) with MSI Anti-Flicker technology
TOUCH PANEL
Non-Touch for Modern AM241 /
In-cell 10-Point Touch for ModernAM241T
Non-Touch for Modern AM241P /
In-cell 10-Point Touch for ModernAM241TP
Non-Touch
Non-Touch
ADJUSTABLE STAND
-5° ~ 15° (Tilt)
-4° ~ 20° (Tilt) ;
0 ~ 130mm (Height)
-5° ~ 15° (Tilt)
-4° ~ 20° (Tilt) ;
0 ~ 130mm (Height)
OPTICAL DRIVE
N/A
AUDIO
2 x 2.5W Speakers
LAN
1 x RJ45 (10/100/1000)
WIRELESS LAN
Intel 9462 AC / AX201 AX (either one)
BLUETOOTH
5.1
USB 3.2 PORT
4 (2x USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type C, 2x USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type A)
USB 2.0 PORT
3
HDMI IN
1
HDMI OUT
1
AUDIO
1x Mic-in/Headphone-out Combo
5-WAY NAVIGATOR
1
KEYBOARD / MOUSE
Optional
AC ADAPTER
90W / 120W (Core i3 above)
AIO WALL MOUNT KIT III
Support Standard VESA Mount (75x75mm)
DIMENSION (WXDXH)
541.40 x 175.09 x 406.86 mm (21.31 x 6.89 x 16.02 inch)
541.40 x 194.68 x 534.92 mm (21.31 x 7.66 x 21.06 inch)
611.75 x 169.96 x 436.06 mm (24.08 x 6.69 x 17.17 inch)
611.75 x 169.96 x 553.52 mm (24.08 x 6.69 x 21.79 inch)
NET WEIGHT
4.65 kg (10.25 lbs)
6.16 kg (13.58 lbs)
5.82 kg (12.83 lbs)
7.42 kg (16.36 lbs)
GROSS WEIGHT
7.35 kg (16.20 lbs)
8.45 kg (18.63 lbs)
8.60 kg (18.96 lbs)
10.00 kg (22.05 lbs)
With more people working from home and relying on virtual meetings, MSI has bumped up the specs of the webcam, delivering 1080p quality. The option to remove the webcam is also there for those concerned about privacy.
Using MSI Instant Display Technology, the Modern AM series can also be used as a standalone monitor for a second system, meaning you don’t have to boot up the PC hidden behind the display. These all-in-one systems also support using a second monitor through an additional HDMI output. Standard VESA mounts are supported for those who prefer having a monitor arm – MSI even has a ready to go solution for that with the VESA Arm MT81.
We’re still waiting on pricing and availability information, but we’ll update if/when we hear more. Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.
KitGuru Says: Do any of you use an all-in-one PC for work at all? What do you think of the new MSI Modern series systems?
Become a Patron!
Check Also
Razer’s Orochi V2 is a compact wireless mouse with up to 900 hours of battery life
Razer is back with another gaming mouse this week. This time around, the Razer Orochi …
The ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga is just half-inch thick computer that lags behind similarly priced competitors on productivity, but is supremely classy and convenient.
For
+ Extremely thin
+ Looks and feels classy
+ Great webcam
Against
– Priced for business, so more expensive
– Haptic touchpad can feel unresponsive
When it comes to portability, the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga ($1,684.99 to start) is all business. It’s an enterprise notebook that puts thinness above all else, including power.
This is a smaller than half-inch convertible that still manages to stay within spitting distance of other similar competitors on productivity while being even smaller than some detachables (with their keyboards attached, to be fair). Combine that with Lenovo’s excellent keyboard and a classy design that’s easy to feel proud of, and it’s clear how the Titanium Yoga could become a respectable daily driver for casual users or certain trendy businesses that don’t require heavy computing from their employees.
But for the price of the unit we reviewed, which had an Intel Core i5-1130G7, you could easily get a speedier competitor equipped with a Core i7 but without the business trappings of ThinkPad. You’ll have to choose if power or portability is more important for your money, as well as whether you need enterprise features like extra durability and security.
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga Specifications
CPU
Intel Core i5-1130G7
Graphics
Intel Iris Xe Integrated Graphics
Memory
16GB LPDDR4x-4266
Storage
512MB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD
Display
13.5 inch, 2256 x 1504, IPS, Touchscreen
Networking
Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX201 11ax, Bluetooth 5.1
Ports
2x Thunderbolt 4, 3.5mm headphone/microphone combo jack
Camera
720p
Battery
44.5 Wh
Power Adapter
65W
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro
Dimensions(WxDxH)
11.71 x 9.16 x 0.45 inches (297.5 x 232.7 x 11.5 mm)
Weight
2.54 pounds (1.15 kg)
Price (as configured)
$1,684.99
Design of Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga
Image 1 of 9
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 9
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 9
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 9
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 5 of 9
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 6 of 9
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 7 of 9
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 8 of 9
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 9 of 9
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
From its silver color to its textured faux leather lid to its titanium, carbon and magnesium chassis, the ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga exudes class. Like a geeky version of a Rolex, this computer is clearly aiming to be a statement piece as much as a genuinely useful device, and for the most part, it succeeds.
That faux leather lid feels soft to the touch, and its texture almost gives the convertible a subdued glittery appearance. The lid’s detailing also makes the ThinkPad feel somewhat like a fancy moleskin journal, both to the eye and to the touch.
Decoration is otherwise minimal, with light ThinkPad branding on the lid and keyboard deck’s outer corners standing out the most. This serves to accentuate the case’s sturdy and solid build quality, which emphasizes the Titanium Yoga’s premium status.
The Titanium Yoga is also thinner than other Intel 11th generation convertibles we’ve tested, coming in at under half an inch of thickness. At 11.71 x 9.16 x 0.45 inches, it’s smaller than the HP Spectre x360 14 (11.75 x 8.67 x 0.67 inches) and the Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 9310 (11.69 x 8.15 x 0.56 inches). It’s even smaller than the recent ThinkPad X12 Detachable with its keyboard attached, which sits at 11.15 x 8.01 x 0.57 inches.
This small form factor extends to weight as well. The Titanium Yoga is 2.54 pounds, whereas the Spectre x360 14 is 2.95 pounds, the Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 is 2.9 pounds and the X12 Detachable is 2.4 pounds.
The small form factor approach doesn’t come without sacrifices, though. The Titanium Yoga is woefully low on ports, with the left side housing two Thunderbolt 4 connections and the right side simply giving you a single 3.5 mm combination microphone/headphone jack. The device doesn’t come with any dongles, so you’re either going to need to buy them separately or pick your accessories carefully.
The Titanium Yoga also comes with a Lenovo Pen, which magnetically attaches to the right side of the display. This is a secure fit, though it might take you a while to figure out that it can actually attach to the device if you don’t read the manual.
Finally, the Titanium Yoga has MIL-SPEC certification, meaning it can take a tumble or five. This isn’t always found on non-business laptops, giving the ThinkPad an edge up when it comes to durability.
Productivity Performance of Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Despite its stylish exterior, our review configuration of the ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga packs lackluster performance compared to similarly-priced 11th generation Intel convertibles. The Intel Core i5-1130G7 processor is the same one you’ll find in the tablet based ThinkPad X12 Detachable, and it’s outclassed by the Intel Core i7-1165G7 that powers both the HP Spectre x360 14 and the Dell XPS 13 2-in-1. Our configuration also only came with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
It’s not too uncommon to see ThinkPads costing more, however, due to their business classification. And, you can configure the ThinkPad X1 Titanium with a Core i7, if you’re willing to pay a bit more.
On Geekbench 5, a synthetic benchmark for testing PC performance, the Titanium Yoga fell behind each of its competitors. It scored 1,328 on single-core tasks and 4,747 on multi-core tasks. That’s only slightly less performance than you’ll get from the ThinkPad X12 Detachable (1,334 single-core/4,778 multi-core), but other convertibles provide more serious competition with the higher-end chips. The HP Spectre x360 14 hit scores of 1,462 on single-core/4,904 on multi-core, while the Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 9310 hit 1,532 on single-core/4,778 on multi-core.
The Titanium Yoga was largely on par with competition when we tested its file transfer speeds, where we tracked how quickly it transferred 25GB of data across its SSD. Here, it hit speeds of 409.26 MBps, which is slightly above the XPS 13 2-in-1’s 405.55 MBps and the X12 Detachable’s 408.39 MBps on the same test. The HP Spectre x360 14 was an outlier here, transferring its files at a speed of 533.61 MBps.
On our Handbrake benchmark, in which we use the free program to track how long it takes a computer to transcode a video file down from 4K to 1080p, once again saw the Titanium Yoga fall towards the bottom of the pack. It finished the task in 20:57, which was faster than the X12 Detachable’s 24:12 but slower than other convertibles. The Spectre x360 14 finished its transcode in 18:05, while the XPS 13 2-in-1 did so in 15:52.
We also ran the Titanium Yoga through Cinebench R23 for 20 runs in a row to simulate an extended intensive work session. Its average score was 3,397, while its CPU ran at an average clock speed of 2.1 GHz. During this time, the CPU hit an average 64.75 degrees Celsius (148.55 degrees Fahrenheit).
Display on the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Like plenty of other recent ultraportables, the Titanium Yoga has a 3:2 aspect ratio screen, which means an image with more vertical headroom. This means more letterboxing on 16:9 content, but it also means you’re expanding your vertical resolution to display more, which is particularly useful for reading webpage content. The Titanium Yoga’s IPS touchscreen in particular has a 2,256 x 1,504 resolution image. That’s more detail than you’ll get on the more common 1920 x 1280 resolution found in the Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 9310 and the ThinkPad X12 Detachable, but less detail than the HP Spectre x360 14’s 3000 x 2000 resolution.
When I watched the trailer for Nobody on the Titanium Yoga, I was impressed by how deep the blacks were, but not by much else. The screen was bright enough that I didn’t have to strain to view it, and while colors were accurate, they were not vivid. Viewing angles were also restrictive in a well-lit room, and I had to sit almost directly in front of the laptop to have a workable image. Turning off my lights solved this problem, but that’s not an applicable solution all of the time. I also noticed a mild glare on the screen even when holding it away from heavy light, but it was easy enough to ignore.
Of course, the Titanium Yoga’s aspect ratio is meant more for surfing the web or working on documents than watching a movie. In that respect, the Titanium Yoga exceeded, especially in tablet mode. Reading on it feels almost like browsing through a well put-together coffee table book.
Our testing found that, when it comes to color, the Titanium Yoga is roughly on par with competition. It covers 71.1% of the DCI-P3 color spectrum, which is about the same as the Dell XPS 13 2-in-1’s 70% DCI-P3 rating and the ThinkPad X12 Detachable’s 74.9% rating. The HP Spectre x360 14 stands as an outlier, hitting a vibrant 139.7% DCI-P3 rating.
The Titanium Yoga had a higher average brightness than most competitors in our testing. It registered at an average 425 nits, with only the XPS 13 2-in-1’s 488 nits beating it. The X12 Detachable had 376.2 average nits of brightness, where the HP Spectre x360 14 was the dimmest at 339 nits.
Keyboard, Touchpad and Stylus on the LenovoThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
The ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga doesn’t make any changes to the classic ThinkPad keyboard design, which makes it a great typer, but its unconfigurable haptic touchpad leaves it feeling unresponsive elsewhere.
The ThinkPad style keyboard is an old favorite among techies, and it works well on the Titanium Yoga. This keyboard has concave keycaps to help you easily touch-type without having to look at its buttons, which feel like they have reasonable travel distance for such a thin machine. I regularly hit between 80 – 85 words per minute on this keyboard, which is between five to ten points higher than I usually score.
The trackpoint nub is also back here, and you can press on it like an analog stick to move your mouse cursor. It’s kind of an old-fashioned solution, but it works well and is decent if you don’t like taking your fingers off home row. I even found myself using it a few times, despite generally preferring touchpads, since I found the Titanium Yoga’s touchpad lacking.
While my finger smoothly glides around the Titanium Yoga’s touchpad and multi-touch gestures are easy to perform thanks to its precision drivers, the touchpad uses haptic feedback and has no travel when you press it in. We’ve seen this option before on MacBooks and certain other PCs, but it’s unconfigurable here, and the amount of force I needed to actuate the touchpad feels awkward to me. Sometimes presses register, and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes I right click when I mean to left click, and vice versa.
There are physical left, right and even middle click buttons above the touchpad, though those exist more for trackpoint users and are inconvenient to reach for when using the touchpad. Additionally, the 3.5 x 2.5 inch touchpad dimensions leave it feeling a little small, and it wasn’t uncommon for my finger to bump up against its sides.
The Titanium Yoga also comes with a Lenovo Pen, which tracks writing well and has three programmable buttons. One of those buttons is where you’d normally place an eraser, but unfortunately isn’t touch sensitive. Palm rejection is impressive here, as I could fully place my palm on the display while writing or drawing with the pen without having the ThinkPad pick it up. The only time palm rejection failed was when I tried to use Windows’ built-in feature that translates handwriting to text when you click on a text box with your stylus. In these situations, my cursor bounced all over the place.
Audio on the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga
Audio on the ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga is loud and accurate, if not what I’d use to DJ my first post-lockdown party. The convertible has two top-firing speakers, one on each side of its keyboard, which I tested by listening to Leave the Door Open by Bruno Mars, Anderson .Paak and Silk Sonic.
This song’s full of drum beats and smooth vocal performances all over the pitch spectrum, but despite that, nothing sounded inaccurate, tinny or dropped on the Titanium Yoga. It could have sounded richer or fuller, but for such a thin device, not losing the bass tracks is enough for me.
As for volume, I could understand the song’s lyrics across most of my 2-bedroom apartment, though they did become muffled at the very edges of my space. When just sitting by myself in front of the Titanium Yoga, I tended to keep the volume at around 60%.
Upgradeability of the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga
The ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga is easy to open, though there’s not much point to doing so. All you have to do is loosen, but not remove, the six Phillips head screws on the convertible’s underside and gently lift off the case. Inside, you’ll see the battery as well as the networking chip. The M.2 SSD is hidden under a black flap, though it’s in an uncommon size (it looks like a 2242 form factor to us, though we don’t have official word on that) and there’s no slot for a second SSD.
You may be able to change out your SSD in the future, but for the other components, consider that you won’t be able to replace them.
Battery Life of the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
The ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga hit just under 10 hours of battery life in our testing, which while not the absolute minimum for an ultraportable, does put it behind most of its similarly powered competition.
Specifically, the Titanium Yoga had 9:58 of life on our battery benchmark, which continuously streams video, browses the web and runs OpenGL tests at 150 nits of brightness. That’s about an hour less life than we got on both the Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 9310, which hit 10:52, and the ThinkPad X12 Detachable, which hit 11:05.
Heat on the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga
For such a thin device, the ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga impresses on cooling. After 15 minutes of streaming video, the device’s touchpad only registered 73.4 degrees Fahrenheit (23 degrees Celsius), while the center of its keyboard in between the G and H keys only hit 81.5 degrees Fahrenheit (27.5 degrees Celsius). Its underside was just slightly hotter at 84.6 degrees Fahrenheit (29.22 degrees Celsius).
The only part of this laptop that even came close to pushing any boundaries was the keyboard deck, right above the f5 key. This hit 93.6 degrees Fahrenheit (34.22 degrees Celsius), which typically isn’t too concerning, but could get warm to the touch after a few seconds here.
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga Webcam
The ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga comes with a single front-facing 720p webcam that’s usually color accurate and tends to avoid artifacting, but doesn’t always hold up to dark or overly lit rooms.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
During late afternoon in my office, the Titanium Yoga’s camera captured my face with no visible grain and no major alterations to my natural skin tone. All aspects of the photo are properly in focus, as well.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
In my much dimmer hallway, shots lost focus and fidelity and heavy grain started to appear. Colors still appear accurate, however.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Colors started to take a hit when I stood in front of my office’s window. Here, my face appears much paler than in real life. You also can’t see much of the scenery outside my window, though artifacting seems to be at a minimum.
Overall, that’s pretty impressive performance for a laptop webcam — no 720p webcam is going to perform perfectly under dim conditions or heavy light. And of course, the typical ThinkPad physical camera shutter is also here on the Titanium Yoga.
Software and Warranty on the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga
The ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga is mostly free of bloat, excluding typical Windows pre-installs like Skype and the Microsoft Solitaire Collection. Otherwise, the Titanium Yoga’s built-in software suite largely focuses on genuine utility.
Most of the Titanium Yoga’s functions are inside Lenovo Commercial Vantage, which is where you’ll update your BIOS and drivers, check your warranty, view your storage and RAM usage, find documentation and check Wi-Fi security.
There’s also Lenovo Pen Settings for programming various aspects of your Lenovo Pen, as well as Dolby Access, which lets you choose between equalizer and postprocessing presets for your display and audio settings.
The one program that does feel excessive here is Glance by Mirametrix, which you can turn on to try to get your computer to move windows to where your eyes are looking or go to sleep if someone looks over your shoulder.
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga Configurations
Our configuration of the ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga came with an Intel Core i5-1130G7 CPU (with integrated Intel Iris Xe graphics), 16GB of LPDDR4x-4266 RAM, a 512GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD and a 13.5 inch 2256 x 1504 IPS touchscreen. All of this currently costs $1,685 on Lenovo’s website.
That $1,685 is also the current starting price for this unit, though other configurations can reach up to $2,429. For these other configurations, your display will stay the same, but you’ll be able to select CPUs up to the Intel Core i7-1180G7 with vPro and RAM capacities ranging from 8GB to 16GB. Storage options range from 256GB to 1TB.
All configurations also come with the Lenovo pen.
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga Bottom Line
The Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium’s focus on size and aesthetics makes this device especially appealing to casual users, but puts it behind other, similarly-priced convertibles when it comes to productivity.
In our performance tests, our Core i5-powered X1 Titanium Yoga fell behind some non-business competitors that have Intel Core i7-1165G7 CPUS and sell for similar prices (you can also get the Titanium Yoga with Core i7 for more money). These rivals also had thicker chassis, which allowed for longer battery life.
But that thickness does count harm portability, and the Titanium Yoga has the advantage of being a business-class device while those rivals are not. That means it comes with added durability, like MIL-SPEC certification, plus extra security and manageability features like vPro.
It also comes with an included stylus. While the HP Spectre x360 14 also has an included pen, the Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 does not. You also get Lenovo’s excellent keyboard with the Titanium Yoga, plus a fashionable design and a moleskin-like finish.
Those features make the Titanium Yoga a great casual usage device, though thanks to its aesthetics, it will look equally at home in the boardroom, the classroom or the living room.
(Pocket-lint) – Apple has revealed its new iMac – available in a single 24-inch size, it brings Apple’s own M1 processors to the iMac lineup as well as a new, thin-bezel design and seven colour finishes.
Here we’re pitching it alongside the 2020 27-inch model featuring Intel processors. We’re expecting this version to be replaced by a new-style, Apple M1-powered model in due course, perhaps with a 32-inch size – certainly, it’s set to be bigger than the 27-inch size we believe. That model will probably have an upgraded Apple Silicon processor, maybe the M2.
The old 2019 21.5-inch iMac model seems to still be available, but we suspect Apple will just be selling off old stock.
squirrel_widget_4537609
Design
2020 iMac: Familiar aluminium design with a black display surround
2021 iMac: New thinner design, seven different colour finishes
The iMac 2021 takes the iMac design up a level. It’s still very recognisable as an iMac and has the same ‘strip’ under the display, but is significantly thinner, without the bulge around the stand. There are also much thinner bezels with a white surround instead of black.
Crucially the 2021 iMac is now available in seven different colour finishes, however, not all are available to all buyers. There are two different models with very small differences. Primarily this is in the graphics, which we’ll come onto shortly, and two additional USB-C ports on the higher-end model. But whereas the ‘two ports’ model is available in four finishes, the more expensive ‘four ports’ model is available in all seven.
The 2019/2020 iMac retains the familiar aluminium design with a black display surround.
Apple
Displays
2020 iMac: 5K 27-inch display
2021 iMac: 24-inch 4.5K display
The older 2020 iMac features a 5K 27-inch display which has been in use for several years – as we’ve said above we expect it to be replaced by a larger model at some point soon, perhaps 32-inches. The new 2021 iMac introduces a 24-inch 4.5K display with smaller bezels than the 27-inch.
The 2019 21.5-inch iMac still appears to be available, though expect it to go end-of-life soon.
Apple
Processor and graphics
2020 iMac: Various Core i5/i7 options topped out by 3.6Ghz 10-core Core i9-10900K, AMD Radeon Pro graphics
2021 iMac: 8-core Apple M1 processor with 7 or 8 core graphics
The 2020 iMac is available with Intel’s 10th Generation Core i processors (Comet Lake) in 6- and 8-core variants of the Core i5 and i7. You can also upgrade to the range-topping 3.6Ghz 10-core Core i9-10900K that’ll Turbo Boost to 5GHz. We had this in our review model and as you’d expect, it absolutely flies.
For the 2021 iMac, both two-port and four-port models have an 8-core Apple M1 processor under the hood. The graphics are where things differ slightly, with 7 or 8 core graphics respectively. The graphics options on the 2020 Intel iMac are varied, with several AMD Radeon Pro options, maxxing out at the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT with 16GB of GDDR6 memory.
Storage and peripherals
2020 iMac: dual USB-C/Thunderbolt 3, four USB-A ports and an SD card slot
2021 iMac: Dual Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports, extra pair of USB-C ports on four-port model
All iMacs come with a Magic Keyboard and Magic Mouse, 2021 iMac available with Touch ID version of Magic Keyboard
The two-port 2021 iMac gives you dual Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports, while the four-port version gives you two additional USB-C ports.
There are stacks of storage options on the 2020 Intel iMacs and you can specify up to a huge 8TB of storage, On the 2021 M1 iMacs though, things are a little more limited – we know the M1 chip is currently limited to 2TB of storage, and you can specify this on the four-port version. On the two-port version you can only get up to 1TB of storage.
The 2020 Intel iMac has two dual USB-C/Thunderbolt 3, four USB-A ports and an SD card slot. So the USB-A and SD slots are gone on the 2021 version. The headphone jack moves from the rear on the 2020 model to the side on the 2021 iMac and the Ethernet port moves to the power brick (yes really), as part of the magnetically attached power cable.
All iMacs come with a Magic Keyboard and Magic Mouse, but the high-end four-port 2021 iMac has a special Magic Keyboard with Touch ID. You can also upgrade the standard Magic Keyboard on the two-port version to the Touch ID model.
squirrel_widget_32084713
Verdict
The 2021 24-inch iMac is a clear step forward, but while it clearly supercedes the 2019 21.5-inch iMac, it’s not a complete replacement for the 2020 27-inch model. That’s because of the storage, processor and graphics options available on that model – and the power of the high end Core i7 and Core i9 options.
We expect there to be a new larger iMac this year to replace the 27-inch model as well, probably with a new M2 processor.
EA and Codemasters revealed the F1 2021system requirements for the upcoming PC launch on Steam. The long-running annual series looks set to add a few extra twists and turns this round, with enhanced ray tracing visuals. That means you’ll likely benefit even more from having one of the best graphics cards driving the game, alongside one of the best CPUs for gaming powering the engine. The game currently has a launch date of July 16, 2021. Here are the minimum and recommended PC specs:
OS: Windows 10 64-bit (1709 or later, 2004 or later for ray tracing)
Both the minimum and recommended system specs are relatively tame until you add in ray tracing. For the CPU, Codemasters lists a relatively ancient Core i3-2130 or an FX-4300. Intel’s CPU is a 2-core/4-thread chip running at 3.4GHz, while AMD’s old FX-4300 is a 4-core/4-thread chip running at up to 4.0GHz — though the FX-series used a CMT (Clustered Multi-Threading) approach that shares some resources between pairs of CPU cores. Most likely, older CPUs could also suffice, though there’s no mention of expected performance. The recommended CPUs meanwhile are far more capable: 6-core/6-thread 4.6GHz for Intel, and 6-core/12-thread 4.2GHz for AMD, with updated architectures compared to the minimum spec.
The GPU will likely play a bigger role, particularly if you want to dip your toes into the ray tracing waters. The GTX 950 and R9 280 hail from 2015 and 2014, respectively, with Nvidia’s card roughly matching a GTX 1050 and AMD’s card coming in a bit ahead of an RX 560. Recommended graphics hardware easily more than doubles performance, with the GTX 1660 Ti and RX 590. And if you want ray tracing, you’ll need at least an RTX 2060 and preferably an RTX 3070 from Nvidia, or an RX 6700 XT and preferably an RX 6800 from AMD.
The remaining F1 2021 system requirements look pretty standard: 8GB RAM, 16GB recommended, 80GB of storage (preferably on an SSD), and of course Windows 10 64-bit — build 2004 (the May 2020 update) is needed for ray tracing, or 2017’s Creators Update build 1703 will suffice for standard rendering.
Our big question regarding the graphics overhaul is how ray tracing will be put to use. Codemasters published Dirt 5 late last year, with a patch adding AMD-promoted ray tracing in March 2021 (press were provided a preview build in December). Unfortunately, the RT effects are only for shadows — one of the least important uses of ray tracing in our opinion. We’d like to see options for RT reflections and lighting as well, but of course that requires more powerful RT hardware.
Given F1 2021 will also launch on the latest consoles, which are less potent than high-end PC graphics cards, we’re not expecting much in the way of dramatically enhanced graphics thanks to ray tracing. Perhaps we’ll be pleasantly surprised this summer.
If you buy something from a Verge link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.
On paper, the Surface Laptop 4 is a Surface Laptop 3 with better chips.
In look and feel, very little has changed from the last generation. Sure, there are differences here and there: the Laptop 4 is ever-so-slightly thinner, and there’s a new “Ice Blue” color option. But you get the same 3:2 touchscreen, the same port selection, and the same design.
The big changes are on the inside. You can configure both the 13.5-inch and 15-inch Surface Laptop models with either Intel’s 11th-Gen processors or AMD’s Ryzen 4000 processors. Microsoft promised that these improvements would deliver significantly better performance and battery life than the previous Surface generation.
So this review will largely focus on the new system’s performance. But my priority wasn’t to compare the 15-inch Surface Laptop 4 that we received to its predecessor. For one, the Laptop 3 set a low performance bar — it had mediocre battery life, and couldn’t even play a 4K 60FPS video without stuttering, so even a competent budget laptop would blow that out of the water. But more importantly, there’s another company out there that recently made a huge chip upgrade to its flagship models, which has left most other 2020 chip upgrades in the dust: Apple, with its Arm-based M1. So my big question when looking at AMD’s new Ryzen 7 Surface Edition (also known as the AMD Ryzen 7 4980U Microsoft Surface Edition because of course it is) is: Does it beat Apple’s M1?
The answer is no. For the most part, it’s still not quite as good. But that may not matter to Surface Laptop 4 buyers — at least, not yet.
First, a quick tour of the Ryzen 7 Surface Edition. This chip isn’t AMD’s top gun; it’s part of the Ryzen 4000 generation, and the Ryzen 5000 mobile series has been out for a few months now. It’s a bit disappointing to see that the Surface is still using the older Ryzen chips, since much of the new generation is based on a new architecture (Zen 3, to the 4000 series’s Zen 2) that has delivered performance gains.
Of course, that doesn’t make the Ryzen 7 4980U a bad chip. Ryzen 4000 chips outperform Intel’s 10th Gen Comet Lake processors across the board. The 4980U in particular has eight cores, and AMD’s excellent Radeon integrated graphics. Note that the M1 also has eight cores, but those cores aren’t created equal. An easy way to think of it is that AMD’s chip has eight all-around-pretty-good cores, while Apple’s chip has four high-performance cores and four weaker cores. You’ll see that difference reflected in our benchmark results later on.
In addition to that processor, the 15-inch Surface Laptop 4 I reviewed comes with 16GB of RAM and 512GB of storage. It costs $1,699. The most comparable M1 MacBook Pro is also $1,699. If you’re not looking to spend that much, you can get the 15-inch Laptop 4 for as low as $1,299 for 8GB of RAM and 256GB of storage, which puts it neck-in-neck with the entry-level MacBook Pro, but with a bigger screen. The 13.5-inch Laptop 4 is priced more closely to the fanless MacBook Air, starting at $999 for a Ryzen 5 4680U, 8GB of RAM, and 256GB of storage. Then, there are the Intel models. You can get a 13.5-inch system with a Core i5 starting at $1,299 (also with 8GB of RAM and 512GB of storage), and a 15-inch system with a Core i7 starting at $1,799 (16GB of RAM, 512GB of storage). It’s all quite confusing, so I recommend visiting Microsoft’s site for yourself to mix and match.
The 13.5-inch model comes in Platinum, Ice Blue Alcantara, Matte Black, and Sandstone. The 15-incher comes in Platinum and Matte Black.
To see how our test system stacks up, I ran various synthetic benchmarks as well as a 5-minute, 33-second 4K video export in Premiere Pro. See the results below:
Surface Laptop 4 15-inch benchmarks
Benchmark
Score
Benchmark
Score
Cinebench R23 Multi
8144
Cinebench R23 Single
1242
Cinebench R23 Multi looped for 30 minutes
8077
Geekbench 5 CPU Multi
7028
Geekbench 5 CPU Single
1163
Geekbench 5 OpenCL / Compute
14393
PugetBench for Premiere Pro
176
Right off the bat, this system is a huge improvement over the Surface Laptop 3. It took 16 minutes and 33 seconds on the video export, where its predecessor took over three hours. (16:33 is a slower time than we’ve seen from many Intel models, but that’s expected since AMD chips don’t support Intel’s Quick Sync.) The Laptop 4 also beats multi-core synthetic results we’ve seen from Intel’s top Tiger Lake chips in the MSI Prestige 14 Evo and the Vaio Z, as well as the 16-inch Intel-based MacBook Pro,
Intel models max out at a quad-core Core i7-1185G7.
But the more interesting comparison is to the M1 machines. The Surface Laptop 4 solidly beats both the MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air on Cinebench R23 Multi, and that task alone — it lost to both machines on every other test we ran, including all three Geekbench tests, the Puget for Premiere Pro benchmark, and the Premiere Pro export. That may seem confusing but (again) it makes sense when you think about the architecture of both chips — the Ryzen chip does better on the task where it can show off all eight of its powerful cores. That indicates that you’ll do well with the Surface Book if you’re running heavy multicore workloads, where you’re more suited to the M1 if you’re primarily doing pretty much anything else.
Of course, that’s far from the whole story. The reality is that most people who want a 15-inch screen probably don’t care if there’s a better-performing 13-inch machine floating around. And the MacBook that’s comparable in size — the MacBook Pro 16 — is significantly more expensive than the Surface Laptop 4, and comes with older Intel chips. So why am I comparing this device to M1 systems, you may ask? Really, I’m benching this laptop against an imaginary 16-inch M1 MacBook Pro, which (rumor has it) will launch sometime in the third quarter of this year. Given the results I’m seeing here, the release of a machine like that would make the Surface Laptop 4 a tougher purchase to justify.
That said, there are two big advantages the Ryzen-powered Surface Laptop 4 could very well have over a 16-inch M1 MacBook. The first is battery life. I got an average of 10 hours and 52 minutes using this device as my primary driver, which is some of the best battery life I’ve ever seen from a 15-inch laptop, and one of the best results I’ve seen from a laptop this year. That beats both of the M1 MacBooks, and destroys the 16-inch Intel MacBook as well. If there’s an area where Microsoft really makes its case, it’s here.
The Laptop 4 also knocks cooling out of the park. The Laptop 4’s fans did a really excellent job cooling the system. Throughout my fairly standard load of office multitasking (including around a dozen Chrome tabs, Spotify streaming, and the like), the chassis remained downright cold. During the more intense tests I ran, the CPU remained steadily in the mid-70s (Celsius) with occasional spikes up to the mid-80s — jumps up to 90 were rare. I was able to run our 4K video export several times in a row without any negative impact on results, and I didn’t see a huge dip in Cinebench results over a 30-minute loop either.
The screen maxed out at 370 nits — a bit dim for outdoor use, as you can see here.
If you’re a fan of the 15-inch Surface Laptop’s design, you’ll be happy to know it hasn’t changed much. One of the big advantages of this device is how thin and light it is, at just 0.58 inches thick and 3.4 pounds. For context, it’s almost a pound lighter than the 16-inch MacBook Pro, and over half a pound lighter than the lightest Dell XPS 15. It’s actually only a bit heavier than the 13-inch MacBook Pro.
With that said, those who aren’t diehard Surface fans may find the Laptop 4’s design a tad dated. In particular, the bezels around the 3:2 screen are quite chunky. That makes sense on a convertible device like the Surface Book 3 or the Surface Pro 7, which you need to be able to hold as a tablet, but doesn’t fit as well on a clamshell. If you put the Laptop 4 next to any member of the XPS line, you’ll see how much sleeker and more modern the latter looks. That doesn’t mean the Laptop 4 is ugly; it’s just falling further behind other Windows laptops each year.
The port selection is also the same, which is good news and bad news. The Laptop 4 retains a USB-A port, which I stubbornly believe is still a necessity for modern laptops (looking at you, Apple and Dell). But there is just one, and neither the Intel or AMD model supports Thunderbolt on their lone USB-C ports, which is disappointing on a laptop at this price. The Surface Laptop could certainly do with more port options, even if it’s competitive with what Apple and Dell are offering in terms of numbers. (In addition to the USB-A and USB-C, you get a headphone jack and Microsoft’s proprietary charging port.)
The Windows Hello webcam is fine, delivering a serviceable picture, and the dual far-field microphones had no trouble picking up my voice. The speakers, which now support Dolby Atmos 9, sound quite clear, with good volume and bass and percussion that are audible (though not booming). Despite having Atmos speakers, our Laptop 4 unit didn’t come preloaded with Dolby Atmos software or anything similar to tune the audio.
All 15-inch models have an aluminum body.
My least favorite part of this laptop is the keyboard. It’s just a bit flat and mushy for my taste. I respect that some people prefer wider, flatter keycaps, of course. But I would take an XPS 15, MacBook, or Surface Book keyboard over this one — it’s just not quite as snappy or satisfying.
Overall, it’s tough to identify a true competitor to the 15-inch Surface Laptop 4. Put it next to a Windows workstation like the $1,200 entry-level Dell XPS 15 and the Surface wins on power, battery life, and weight. It’s a good purchase for someone who wants an excellent combination of efficiency and multicore performance in a 15-inch chassis, but doesn’t need the grunt of a discrete GPU.
The keyboard is backlit and has 1.3 mm of travel.
But that window of opportunity may be closing, because there’s very likely a larger M1 MacBook Pro on the way. I think there’s a good argument that people in the group described above (who don’t need a device right this second) should sit back and wait to see what Apple does in the next few months before committing to Microsoft’s machine, provided they don’t have a hard preference for operating systems.
On the other hand, even if the larger MacBook Pro is spectacular, there are some advantages the Laptop 4 will certainly retain (it runs Windows, and it’s built like a Surface Laptop) and some it will probably retain (it’ll likely be lighter than the MacBook Pro 16). And, of course, plenty of people need a laptop right now. In today’s market, among today’s 15-inch laptops, the Surface Laptop 4 is a pretty damn good buy. Microsoft didn’t change much about the outside — but on the inside, it really pulled through.
11th Generation Rocket Lake Processor (Image credit: Intel)
As with every generation of Intel processor, Silicon Lottery has started selling pre-binned Intel 11th Generation Rocket Lake chips. These processors are perfect for consumers who don’t want to play the silicon lottery and are willing to pay a small premium to get a guaranteed overclock.
Silicon Lottery currently offers pre-binned Core i5-11600K and Core i9-11900K processors. The company has also listed the Core i9-11900KF, but it’s seemingly sold out. Silicon Lottery backs its pre-binned parts with a limited one-year warranty that’s eligible for a one-time replacement.
The highest-binned Core i9-11900K sells for $879.99, 63.3% over Intel’s MSRP. This particular chip offers a 5.1 GHz boost clock across all eight Cypress Cove cores. In comparison to the Core i9-11900K’s default specifications, Silicon Lottery’s version offers a 6.2% higher all-core boost clock at the expense of a 63.3% premium.
On a different note, the fastest Core i5-11600K in Silicon Lottery’s portfolio operates with a 5 GHz all-core boost clock. It represents a 8.7% upgrade but with a 29.8% higher price tag.
Intel 11th Generation Rocket Lake CPU Specifications
Processor
Price
MSRP
Cores / Threads
Binned All-Core Boost (GHz)
Default All-Core Boost (GHz)
Core i9-11900K 5.1 GHz
$879.99
$539
8 / 16
5.1
4.8
Core i9-11900K 5.0 GHz
$699.99
$539
8 / 16
5.0
4.8
Core i9-11900K 4.9 GHz
$619.99
$539
8 / 16
4.9
4.8
Core i5-11600K 5.0 GHz
$339.99
$262
6 / 12
5.0
4.6
Core i5-11600K 4.9 GHz
$259.99
$262
6 / 12
4.9
4.6
Core i5-11600K 4.8 GHz
$249.99
$262
6 / 12
4.8
4.6
However, the odds might not be too bad for consumers that want to take their chances at the silicon lottery. According to Silicon Lottery, 100% of Core i9-11900K samples can hit 4.9 GHz across all cores. Even 73% of the samples got to 5 GHz without hiccups. However, only 29% could do 5.1 GHz.
As for the Core i5-11600K, a 4.8 GHz all-core boost clock was possible on 100% of the samples, while 4.9 GHz was achievable on 81% of the chips. Only the top 17% Core i5-11600K samples managed to peak at 5 GHz though.
There’s one missing detail with Silicon Lottery’s statistics though, and that’s the sample size. Without that value, you can’t really assess on the precision of the company’s results. At a first glance, the odds do look favorable.
Unlike previous occasions, Silicon Lottery doesn’t have any plans to offer its delidding service for Rocket Lake processors. Given the risks that are involved with delidding Rocket Lake chips, it’s understandable why Silicon Lottery is hesitant to put Rocket Lake under the knife.
The Intel Core i5-11600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X rivalry is a heated battle for supremacy right in the heart of the mid-range CPU market. AMD’s Ryzen 5000 processors took the lead in the desktop PC from Intel’s competing Comet Lake processors last year, upsetting our Best CPU for gaming recommendations and our CPU Benchmarks hierarchy. Intel’s response comes in the form of its Rocket Lake processors, which dial up the power to extreme levels and bring the new Cypress Cove architecture to the company’s 14nm process as Intel looks to upset AMD’s powerful Zen 3-powered Ryzen 5000 chips.
Intel has pushed its 14nm silicon to the limits as it attempts to unseat the AMD competition, and that has paid off in the mid-range where Intel’s six-core Core i5-11600K weighs in with surprisingly good performance given its $232 to $262 price point.
Intel’s aggressive pricing, and the fact that the potent Ryzen 5 5600X remains perpetually out of stock and price-gouged, has shifted the conversation entirely. For Intel, all it has to do is serve up solid pricing, have competitive performance, and make sure it has enough chips at retail to snatch away the win.
We put the Core i5-11600K up against the Ryzen 5 5600X in a six-round faceoff to see which chip takes the crown in our gaming and application benchmarks, along with other key criteria like power consumption and pricing. Let’s see how the chips stack up.
Features and Specifications of AMD Ryzen 5 5600X vs Intel Core i5-11600K
Rocket Lake Core i5-11600K vs AMD Zen 3 Ryzen 5 5600X Specifications and Pricing
Suggested Price
Cores / Threads
Base (GHz)
Peak Boost (Dual/All Core)
TDP
iGPU
L3
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
$299 (and much higher)
6 / 12
3.7
4.6
65W
None
32MB (1×32)
Intel Core i5-11600K (KF)
$262 (K) – $237 (KF)
6 / 12
3.9
4.6 / 4.9 (TB2)
125W
UHD Graphics 750 Xe 32EU
12MB
The 7nm Ryzen 5 5600X set a new bar for the mid-range with six Zen 3 cores and twelve threads that operate at a 3.7-GHz base and 4.6-GHz boost frequency. Despite AMD’s decision to hike gen-on-gen pricing, the 5600X delivered class-leading performance at its launch, not to mention a solid price-to-performance ratio. Things have changed since then, though, due to overwhelming demand coupled with pandemic-spurred supply chain disruptions, both of which have combined to make finding the Ryzen 5 5600X a rarity at retail, let alone at the suggested $299 pricing.
Intel’s Core i5-11600K also comes with six cores and twelve threads, but Team Blue’s chips come with the new Cypress Cove architecture paired with the aging 14nm process. Intel has tuned this chip for performance; it weighs in with a 3.9-GHz base, 4.9-GHz Turbo Boost 2.0, and 4.6-GHz all-core clock rates. All of these things come at the expense of power consumption and heat generation.
Intel specs the 14nm 11600K at a 125W TDP rating, but that jumps to 182W under heavy loads, while AMD’s denser and more efficient 7nm process grants the 5600X a much-friendlier 65W TDP rating that coincides with a peak of 88W. We’ll dive deeper into power consumption a bit later, but this is important because the Core i5-11600K comes without a cooler. You’ll need a capable cooler, preferably a 280mm liquid AIO or equivalent air cooler, to unlock the best of the 11600K.
Meanwhile, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X comes with a bundled cooler that is sufficient for most users, though you would definitely need to upgrade to a better cooler if you plan on overclocking. Additionally, a more robust cooler will unlock slightly higher performance in heavy work, like rendering or encoding. Still, you’d need to do that type of work quite regularly to see a worthwhile benefit, so most users will be fine with the bundled cooler.
Both the Core i5-11600K and Ryzen 5 5600X support PCIe 4.0, though it is noteworthy that Intel’s chipset doesn’t support the speedier interface. Instead, devices connected to Intel’s chipset operate at PCIe 3.0 speeds. That means you’ll only have support for one PCIe 4.0 m.2 SSD port on your motherboard, whereas AMD’s chipset is fully enabled for PCIe 4.0, giving you more options for a plethora of faster devices.
Both chips also support two channels of DDR4-3200 memory, but Intel’s new Gear memory feature takes a bit of the shine off Intel’s memory support. At stock settings, the 11600K supports DDR4-2933 in Gear 1 mode, which provides the best latency and performance for most tasks, like gaming. You’ll have to operate the chip in Gear 2 mode for warrantied DDR4-3200 support, but that results in performance penalties in some latency-sensitive apps, like gaming, which you can read about here.
For some users, the 11600K does have a big insurmountable advantage over the Ryzen 5 5600X: The chip comes with the new UHD Graphics 750 comes armed with 32 EUs based on the Xe graphics engine, while all Ryzen 5000 processors come without integrated graphics. That means Intel wins by default if you don’t plan on using a discrete GPU.
Notably, you could also buy Intel’s i5-11600KF, which comes with a disabled graphics engine, for $25 less. At $237, the 11600KF looks incredibly tempting, which we’ll get to a bit later.
Winner: AMD
The Ryzen 5 5600X and the Core i5-11600K are close with six cores and twelve threads (and each of those cores has comparable performance), but the 5600X gets the nod here due to its bundled cooler and native support for DDR4-3200 memory. Meanwhile, the Core i5-11600K comes without a cooler, and you’ll have to operate the memory in sub-optimal Gear 2 mode to access DDR4-3200 speeds, at least if you want to stay within the warranty.
The Core i5-11600K comes with integrated graphics, so it wins by default if you don’t plan on using a discrete GPU. Conversely, you can sacrifice the graphics for a lower price point. AMD has no high-end chips that come with integrated graphics, though that will change by the end of the year when the Ryzen 5000 Cezanne APUs arrive.
Gaming Performance on AMD Ryzen 5 5600X vs Core i9-11600K
The Ryzen 5 and Core i5 families tend to be the most popular gaming chips, and given the big architectural advances we’ve seen with both the Zen 3 and Cypress Cove architectures, these mid-range processors can push fast GPUs along quite nicely.
That said, as per usual, we’re testing with an Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 to reduce GPU-imposed bottlenecks as much as possible, and differences between test subjects will shrink with lesser cards, which you’ll see most often with this class of chip, or higher resolutions. Below you can see the geometric mean of our gaming tests at 1080p and 1440p, with each resolution split into its own chart. PBO indicates an overclocked Ryzen configuration. You can find our test system details here.
Image 1 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 5 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 6 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 7 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 8 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 9 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 10 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 11 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 12 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 13 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 14 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 15 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 16 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 17 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 18 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
At stock settings at 1080p, the Core i5-11600K notches an impressive boost over its predecessor, the 10600K, but the Ryzen 5 5600X is 7.8% faster over the full span of our test suite. Overclocking the 11600K brings it up to snuff with the stock Ryzen 5 5600X, but the overclocked 5600X configuration is still 3.6% faster.
As you would expect, those deltas will shrink tremendously with lesser graphics cards or with higher resolutions. At 1440p, the stock 5600X is 3.3% faster than the 11600K, and the two tie after overclocking.
Flipping through the individual games shows that the leader can change quite dramatically, with different titles responding better to either Intel or AMD. Our geometric mean of the entire test suite helps smooth that out to one digestible number, but bear in mind – the faster chip will vary based on the game you play.
Notably, the 11600K is 14% less expensive than the 5600X, and that’s if (a huge if) you can find the 5600X at recommended pricing. You could also opt for the graphics-less 11600KF model and pay 26% less than the 5600X, again, if you can find the 5600X at recommended pricing.
Winner: AMDOverall, the Ryzen 5 5600X is the faster gaming chip throughout our test suite, but be aware that performance will vary based on the title you play. This class of chips is often paired with lesser graphics cards, and most serious gamers play at higher resolutions. In both of those situations, you could be hard-pressed to notice the difference between the processors. However, it’s rational to expect that the Ryzen 5 5600X will leave a bit more gas in the tank for future GPU upgrades.
Pricing is the wild card, though, and the Core i5-11600K wins that category easily — even if you could find the Ryzen 5 5600X at suggested pricing. We’ll dive into that in the pricing section.
Application Performance of Intel Core i5-11600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X
Image 1 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 5 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 6 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 7 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 8 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 9 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 10 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 11 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
We can boil down productivity application performance into two broad categories: single- and multi-threaded. The first slide in the above album has a geometric mean of performance in several of our single-threaded tests, but as with all cumulative measurements, use this as a general guide and be aware that performance will vary based on workload.
The Core i5-11600K takes the lead, at both stock and overclocked settings, by 3.8% and 1%, respectively. These are rather slim deltas, but it’s clear that the Rocket Lake chip holds the edge in lightly threaded work, particularly in our browser tests, which are a good indicator of general snappiness in a standard desktop PC operating system. We also see a bruising performance advantage in the single-threaded AVX-512-enabled y-cruncher.
The Core i5-11600K is impressive in single-threaded work, but the Ryzen 5 5600X isn’t far behind. It’s too bad that the 11600K’s lead in these types of tests doesn’t equate to leading performance in gaming, which has historically been the case with processors that excel at single-threaded tasks.
Image 1 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 5 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 6 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 7 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 8 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 9 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 10 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 11 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 12 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 13 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 14 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 15 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 16 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 17 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 18 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 19 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 20 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 21 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Here we take a closer look at performance in heavily-threaded applications, which has long been the stomping grounds of AMD’s core-heavy Ryzen processors. Surprisingly, in our cumulative measurement, the Core i5-11600K is actually 2.5% faster than the 5600X at stock settings and is 1.8% faster after we overclocked both chips.
These are, again, slim deltas, and the difference between the chips will vary based on workload. However, the Core i5-11600K is very competitive in threaded work against the 5600X, which is an accomplishment in its own right. The substantially lower pricing is even more impressive.
Winner: Intel
Based on our cumulative measurement, Intel’s Core i5-11600K comes out on top in both single- and multi-threaded workloads, but by slim margins in both categories of workloads, and that can vary based on the application. However, given that the Core i5-11600K has significantly lower pricing and pulls out a few hard-earned wins on the application front, this category of the Core i5-11600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X competition goes to Intel.
Overclocking of Ryzen 5 5600X vs Core i5-11600K
We have reached the land of diminishing returns for overclocking the highest-end chips from both AMD and Intel, largely because both companies are engaged in a heated dogfight for performance superiority. As a result, much of the overclocking frequency headroom is rolled into standard stock performance, leaving little room for tuners, making memory and fabric overclocking all the more important. There’s still plenty of advantages with overclocking the midrange models though in today’s Ryzen 5 5600X vs Core i5-11600K battle, but be aware that your mileage may vary.
Intel benefits from higher attainable clock rates, especially if you focus on overclocking a few cores instead of the standard all-core overclock, and exposes a wealth of tunable parameters with its Rocket Lake chips. That includes separate AVX offsets for all three flavors of AVX, and the ability to set voltage guardbands. Intel also added an option to completely disable AVX, though that feature is primarily geared for professional overclockers. Rocket also supports per-core frequency and hyper-threading control (enable/disable) to help eke out more overclocking headroom.
The Core i5-11600K supports real-time memory frequency adjustments, though motherboard support will vary. For example, this feature allows you to shift from DDR4-2933 to DDR4-3200 from within Windows 10 without rebooting (or any other attainable memory frequency). Intel also supports live memory timing adjustments from within the operating system.
Intel has long locked overclocking to its pricey K-series models, while AMD freely allows overclocking with all SKUs on almost any platform. However, we see signs of some improvement here from Intel, as it has now enabled memory overclocking on its B560 and H570 chipsets across the board. That said, Intel’s new paradigm of Gear 1 and Gear 2 modes does reduce the value of memory overclocking, which you can read more about in our review.
AMD’s Ryzen 5000 chips come with innovative boost technology that largely consumes most of the available frequency headroom, so there is precious little room for bleeding-edge all-core overclocks. In fact, all-core overclocking with AMD’s chips is lackluster; you’re often better off using its auto-overclocking Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2) feature that boosts multi-threaded performance. AMD also has plenty of Curve Optimization features that leverage undervolting to increase boost activity.
Much of the benefit of the Ryzen 500 series0 comes from its improved fabric overclocking, which then allows you to tune in higher memory overclocks. We hit a 1900-MHz fabric on our chip, allowing us to run the memory in a 1:1 mode at a higher DDR4-3800 memory speed than we could pull off with the 11600K with the same 1:1 ratio. It also isn’t uncommon to see enthusiasts hit DDR4-4000 in 1:1 mode with Ryzen 5000 processors. There’s no doubt that Intel’s new Gear 1 and 2 memory setup isn’t that refined — you can adjust the 5600X’s fabric ratio to expand the 1:1 window to higher frequencies, while Intel does not have a comparable adjustable parameter.
Winner: Tie
Both the Ryzen 5 5600X and the Core i5-11600K have a bit more overclocking headroom than their higher-end counterparts, meaning that there is still some room for gains in the mid-range. Both platforms have their respective overclocking advantages and a suite of both auto-overclocking and software utilities, meaning this contest will often boil down to personal preference.
Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling of Intel Core i5-11600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
Image 1 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 5 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 6 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 7 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 8 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 9 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 10 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 11 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 12 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
The Core i5-11600K comes with the same 125W TDP rating as its predecessor, but that rating is a rough approximation of power consumption during long-duration workloads. To improve performance in shorter-term workloads, Intel increased the PL2 rating (boost) to 251W, a whopping 69W increase over the previous-gen 10600K that also came with six cores.
Power consumption and heat go hand in hand, so you’ll have to accommodate that power consumption with a robust cooler. We didn’t have any issues with the Core i5-11600K and a 280mm liquid cooler (you could get away with less), but we did log up to 176W of power consumption at stock settings during our Handbrake benchmark.
In contrast, the Ryzen 5 5600X sips power, reaching a maximum of 76W at stock settings during a Blender benchmark. In fact, a quick look at the renders-per-day charts reveals that AMD’s Ryzen 5 5600X is in another league in terms of power efficiency — you get far more performance per watt consumed, which results in lower power consumption and heat generation.
The 5600X’s refined power consumption comes via TSMC’s 7nm process, while Intel’s 14nm process has obviously reached the end of the road in terms of absolute performance and efficiency.
Winner: AMD
AMD wins this round easily with lower power consumption, higher efficiency, and less thermal output. Intel has turned the power up to the extreme to stay competitive with AMD’s 7nm Ryzen 5000 chips, and as a result, the Core i5-11600K pulls more power and generates more heat than the Ryzen 5 5600X. Additionally, the Core i5-11600K doesn’t come with a bundled cooler, so you’ll need to budget in a capable model to unlock the best the chip has to offer, while the Ryzen 5 5600X comes with a bundled cooler that is good enough for the majority of users.
Pricing and Value of AMD Ryzen 5 5600X vs Intel Core i5-11600K
AMD was already riding the pricing line with the Ryzen 5 5600X’s suggested $299 price tag, but supply of this chip is volatile as of the time of writing, to put it lightly, leading to price gouging. This high pricing comes as a byproduct of a combination of unprecedented demand and pandemic-spurred supply chain issues, but it certainly destroys the value proposition of the Ryzen 5 5600X, at least for now.
The Ryzen 5 5600X currently retails for $370 at Microcenter, which is usually the most price-friendly vendor, a $69 markup over suggested pricing. The 5600X is also $450 from Amazon (not a third-party seller). Be aware that the pricing and availability of these chips can change drastically in very short periods of time, and they go in and out of stock frequently, reducing the accuracy of many price tracking tools.
In contrast, the Core i5-11600K can be found for $264 at Amazon, and $260 at Microcenter, which is surprisingly close to the $262 suggested tray pricing. Additionally, you could opt for the graphics-less Core i5-11600KF if you don’t need a discrete GPU. That chip is a bit harder to find than the widely-available 11600K, but we did find it for $240 at Adorama (near suggested pricing).
Here’s the breakdown (naturally, this will vary):
Suggested Price
Current (volatile for 5600X)
Price Per Core
Core i5-11600K
$262
$262 to $264
~$32.75
Ryzen 5 5600X
$299
$370 to $450
~$46.25 to $56.25
Core i5-11600KF
$237
$240 (spotty availability)
~$29.65
The Core i5-11600K doesn’t come with a cooler, so you’ll have to budget that into your purchasing decision.
Winner: Intel
Even at recommended pricing for both chips, Intel’s aggressive pricing makes the Core i5-11600K a tempting proposition, but the company wins this stage of the battle convincingly based on one almost insurmountable advantage: You can actually find the chip readily available at retail for very close to its suggested tray pricing. With much cheaper pricing both on a per-core and absolute basis, the Core i5-11600K is the better buy, and if you’re looking for an even lower cost of entry, the Core i5-11600KF is plenty attractive if you don’t need integrated graphics.
AMD’s premium pricing for the Ryzen 5 5600X was a bit of a disappointment for AMD fans at launch, but the chip did offer enough advantages to justify the price tag. However, the arrival of the Core i5-11600K with its disruptive pricing and good-enough performance would probably merit a slight pricing adjustment from AMD, or the release of a non-X model, if these were normal times. These aren’t normal times, though, and instead of improving its value proposition, AMD is facing crippling supply challenges.
Bottom Line
Intel Core i5-11600K
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
Features and Specifications
X
Gaming
X
Application Performance
X
Overclocking
X
X
Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling
X
Pricing and Value Proposition
X
Total
3
4
Here’s the tale of the tape: AMD wins this Ryzen 5 5600X vs Intel Core i5-11600K battle with a tie in one category and a win in three others, marking a four to three victory in favor of Team Red. Overall, the Ryzen 5 5600X offers up a superior blend of gaming performance, power consumption and efficiency, and a bundled cooler to help offset the higher suggested retail pricing, remaining our go-to chip recommendation for the mid-range. That is if you can find it at or near suggested pricing.
Unfortunately, in these times of almost unimaginably bad chip shortages, the chip that you can actually buy, or even find anywhere even near recommended pricing, is going to win the war at the checkout lane. For now, Intel appears to be winning the supply battle, though that could change in the coming months. As a result, the six-core twelve-thread Core i5-11600K lands with a friendly $262 price point, making it much more competitive with AMD’s $300 Ryzen 5 5600X that currently sells far over suggested pricing due to shortages.
The Core i5-11600K has a very competitive price-to-performance ratio compared to the Ryzen 5 5600X in a broad swath of games and applications. The 11600K serves up quite a bit of performance for a ~$262 chip, and the graphics-less 11600KF is an absolute steal if you can find it near the $237 tray pricing. If you don’t need an integrated GPU, the KF model is your chip.
Even if we compare the chips at AMD’s and Intel’s standard pricing, the Core i5-11600K is a potent challenger with a solid value proposition due to its incredibly aggressive pricing. While the Core i5-11600K might not claim absolute supremacy, its mixture of price and performance makes it a solid buy if you’re willing to overlook the higher power consumption.
Most gamers would be hard-pressed to notice the difference when you pair these chips with lesser GPUs or play at higher resolutions, though the Ryzen 5 5600X will potentially leave you with more gas in the tank for future GPU upgrades. The Ryzen 5 5600X is the absolute winner, though, provided you can find it anywhere close to the suggested retail price.
AMD has announced that its 7nm Ryzen 5000G series APUs, codename Cezanne, are now shipping to OEMs with availability for the DIY/retail market coming later this year. AMD announced three primary 65W models that span from four Zen 3 cores up to eight cores, accompanied by Vega graphics that span from 6 graphics cores to eight. AMD hasn’t shared pricing for these processors yet — that information will likely come during the retail launch later this year. In either case, we are sure that these new chips will rank on our list of Best CPUs and Best Cheap CPUs.
Compared to intel’s Core i7-10700, AMD claims the chips are 38% faster in content creation, 35% faster in productivity, and are up to 2.17X faster in gaming, which comes courtesy of the built-in Radeon Vega graphics engine. AMD also provided plenty of benchmark comparisons, albeit against Intel’s 10th-gen processors and not the Rocket Lake chips that come with the more potent UHD Graphics 750 engine powered by 32 EUs with the Xe architecture.
As expected, AMD also released three low-power 35W variants with lower base frequencies to fit inside more restricted power/thermal environments and smaller builds. As with all Zen 3 processors, the Ryzen 5000G chips step up to a faster DDR4-3200 interface, which will certainly help the integrated GPU in gaming performance. However, AMD has stuck with the PCIe 3.0 interface found on all of its current-gen APUs.
Given the ongoing graphics card shortages, newly revamped APUs could be a welcome sight for the gaming market. That is if AMD can keep them in stock, of course. In either case, AMD’s willingness to bring these APUs to market is laudable given that its previous-gen Ryzen 4000 series APUs only landed in the OEM/pre-built market.
AMD Ryzen 5000G G-Series Specifications
AMD Ryzen 5000 G-Series 65W Renoir APUs
CPU
Cores/Threads
Frequency (Up to) Boost / Base
Graphics Cores
Graphics Frequency
TDP
Cache
Ryzen 7 5700G
8 / 16
3.8 / 4.6
RX Vega 8
2100 MHz
65W
20 MB
Ryzen 7 4700G
8 / 16
3.6 / 4.4
RX Vega 8
2100 MHz
65W
12 MB
Ryzen 5 5600G
6 / 12
3.9 / 4.4
RX Vega 7
1900 MHz
65W
19 MB
Ryzen 5 4600G
6 / 12
3.7 / 4.2
RX Vega 7
1900 MHz
65W
11 MB
Ryzen 3 5300G
4 / 8
4.0 / 4.2
RX Vega 6
1700 MHz
65W
10 MB
Ryzen 3 4300G
4 / 8
3.8 / 4.0
RX Vega 6
1700 MHz
65W
6 MB
The Ryzen 5000G lineup spans from four to eight cores, with the key addition being the Zen 3 architecture that provides a 19% IPC uplift over the Zen 2 architecture used in the previous-gen Ryzen 4000G models. We also see higher clock rates across the lineup, with peak boost speeds now weighing in at 4.6 GHz for the eight-core 5700G, whereas the previous-gen models topped out at 4.4 GHz. We also see that base clocks have increased by 200 MHz across the 65W chips.
The new architecture also grants higher L3 cache capacities. For instance, the eight-core 16-thread Ryzen 7 5700G now has 20MB of L3 cache compared to its eight-core predecessor that came with 12MB. These are the natural byproducts of the Zen 3 architecture and should benefit general iGPU performance, too.
AMD continues to pair the chips with the Vega graphics architecture, just as it did with the 4000-series APUs, but AMD reworked the architecture for its last go-round — the reworked RX Vega graphics delivered up to ~60% percent more performance per compute unit (CU) than its predecessors, which equated to more graphics performance from fewer CU. We aren’t sure if AMD has made a similar adjustment this time around, but we’ve reached out for more detail. We do know that the graphics units run at the same frequencies for each model.
All of the chips come with a 45W to 65W configurable TDP (cTDP), broadening the range of potential uses for these higher-end Ryzen 5000G APUs. If you need to dip below the 45W range, you would look at the GE Models below.
AMD Ryzen 5000 GE-Series 35W Renoir APUs
CPU
Cores/Threads
Frequency (Up to) Boost / Base
Graphics Cores
Graphics Frequency
TDP
Cache
Ryzen 7 5700GE
8 / 16
3.2 / 4.6
RX Vega 8
2000 MHz
35W
20 MB
Ryzen 7 4700GE
8 / 16
3.1 / 4.3
RX Vega 8
2000 MHz
35W
12 MB
Ryzen 5 5600GE
6 / 12
3.4 / 4.4
RX Vega 7
1900 MHz
35W
19 MB
Ryzen 5 4600GE
6 / 12
3.3 / 4.2
RX Vega 7
1900 MHz
35W
11 MB
Ryzen 3 5300GE
4 / 8
3.6 / 4.2
RX Vega 6
1700 MHz
35W
10 MB
Ryzen 3 4300GE
4 / 8
3.5 / 4.0
RX Vega 6
1700 MHz
35W
6 MB
Here we can see the new 35W models, which aren’t as exciting for regular users but are a boon for HTPC and SFF enthusiasts. As expected, base clocks are lower than the 65W models, but that’s needed to squeeze into the 35W TDP envelope. However, AMD retains the impressive single-threaded boosts, which is impressive.
Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: AMD)
Image 2 of 3
(Image credit: AMD)
Image 3 of 3
(Image credit: AMD)
AMD Ryzen 5000G Performance Claims
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: AMD)
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: AMD)
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: AMD)
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: AMD)
AMD presented plenty of comparisons to Intel’s Core i7-10700 and the Core i5-10600, but bear in mind that these are Intel’s previous-gen Comet Lake processors. That means these results are not representative of performance with the 11th-gen Rocket Lake chips that come with a significantly upgraded Xe UHD Graphics 750 engine that’s powered by 32 EUs. As per usual, take any vendor-provided benchmarks with the requisite grain of salt. The test notes are at the end of the album.
We’ve already seen listings of the Pro variants for commercial systems, but there are very few details about systems that will come with the consumer Cezanne chips. We expect that several vendors will announce new pre-built systems with the APUs over the coming weeks. We’ll update as we learn more.
Microsoft today announced the next iteration of its Surface laptop, the Surface Laptop 4. It will start at $999 when it goes on sale on April 15. Perhaps its biggest selling point is choice, with options for both 11th Gen Intel Core processors or an 8-core AMD Ryzen (again called the Microsoft Surface Edition).
Both the 13.5-inch and 15-inch version of the Surface Laptop 4 will offer Intel and AMD options. This is a change from the Surface Laptop 3, which offered Intel in the 13.5-incher and
AMD in the 15-incher
(with the exception of business models).
Microsoft Surface Laptop 4 (13.5-inches)
Microsoft Surface Laptop 4 (15-inches)
CPU
Up to AMD Ryzen Microsoft Surface Edition R5 4680U (8 cores), Up to Intel Core i7-1185G7
Up to AMD Ryzen Microsoft Surface Edition R7 4980U ( 8 cores), Up to Intel Core i7-1185G7
Graphics
AMD Radeon RX Graphics or Intel Xe Graphics
AMD Radeon RX Graphics or Intel Xe Graphics
RAM
Up to 16GB (AMD), Up to 32GB (Intel), LPDDR4X 3,733 MHz
Up to 16GB (AMD, DDR4, 2,400 MHz), up to 32GB (Intel, LPDDR4, 3,733 MHz)
Storage
Up to 256GB (AMD), Up to 1TB (Intel)
Up to 512GB (AMD), Up to 1TB (Intel)
Display
13.5-inch PixelSense display, 2256 x 1504, 3:2
15-inch PixelSense display, 2496 x 1664, 3:2
Networking
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax), Bluetooth 5.0
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax), Bluetooth 5.0
Starting Price
$999 (AMD), $1,299 (Intel)
$1,299 (AMD), $1,799 (Intel)
The design of the Surface Laptop 4 is largely unchanged, with a 3:2 touchscreen display with 201 pixels per inch, options for Alcantara fabric or a metal deck. There is, however, one new color, ice blue, which debuted on the Surface Laptop Go last year.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Microsoft)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Microsoft)
Many of the biggest changes can’t be seen. For the first time, Microsoft is offering a 32GB RAM option on the Surface Laptop (with an Intel Core i7 at 1TB of RAM on both sizes). The company is claiming up to 19 hours of battery life on the smaller device with an AMD Ryzen 5 or 17 hours with a Core i7. On the bigger size, it’s suggesting up to 17.5 hours with an AMD Ryzen 7 and 16.5 hours with Intel Core i7. Microsoft is also claiming a 70% performance increase, though it doesn’t say with which processor.
The new AMD Ryzen Microsoft Surface Edition chips are based on Ryzen 4000 and Zen 2, rather than Ryzen 5000 and Zen 3, which is just rolling onto the market. We understand Microsoft’s chips are somewhat customized, including frequencies similar to the newer chips. But these new processors should, in theory, lead to increased stability and battery life.
While Microsoft is being more flexible on allowing both Intel and AMD options on both size machines, you won’t find them with identical specs when it comes to RAM and storage. The 13.5-inch laptop will offer Ryzen 5 with 8GB or 16GB of RAM and 256GB of storage, while the Intel 11th Gen Core process range will include a Core i5/8GB RAM/512GB SSD option to start, as well as both Core i5 and Core i7 models with 16GB of RAM and 512GB of storage and a maxxed out version with a Core i7, 32GB of RAM and 1TB storage drive. The Ryzzen versions only come in platinum, while all but the top-end Intel model also include ice blue, sandstone and black.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Microsoft)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Microsoft)
On the 15-inch model, you can get a Ryzen 7 with 8GB of RAM and either 256GB or 512GB of storage, or an R7 with 16GB of memory and a 512GB SSD. For intel, You can choose between an Intel Core i7 with either 16GB of memory and 512GB of storage or 32GB of memory and 1TB of storage. These only come in platinum and black.
Commercial models will add more configurations for businesses, including a 13.5-inch model with 512GB of storage and a Ryzen processor. Overall, there are a lot of configurations, so hopefully people are able to find what they want. But there are definitely more options on the Intel side of the Surface fence.
The port situation is largely the same as last year, including USB Type-A, USB Type-C, a headphone jack and the Surface Connect port. Microsoft still isn’t going with Thunderbolt, and will be using USB-C 3.1 Gen 2 on both the Intel and AMD models. The replaceable SSD is back, though Microsoft continues to state that it isn’t user serviceable, and that it should only be removed by authorized technicians.
It’s been a long wait for the Surface Laptop 4. The Surface Laptop 3 was introduced at an event in October 2019 and went on sale that November. Last year, Microsoft revealed the cheaper, smaller Surface Laptop Go but didn’t update the flagship clamshell. We’ll go hands on with the Surface Laptop 4, so let’s hope the wait was worth it.
Microsoft is also revealing a slew of accessories designed for virtual work. They include the $299.99 Surface Headphones 2+ for Business, which is certified for Microsoft Teams with a dongle, shipping this month; Microsoft Modern USB and wireless headsets ($49.99 and $99.99, respectively, releasing in June); the Microsoft Modern USB-C Speaker ($99.99, releasing in June); and the Microsoft Modern webcam, a $69.99 camera with 1080p video, HDR and a 78-degree field of view that will go on sale in June.
Microsoft is refreshing its Surface lineup with the Surface Laptop 4 today, which now offers the choice between AMD or Intel processors across both the 13.5- and 15-inch models. Both sizes will ship with Intel’s latest 11th Gen processors or AMD’s Ryzen 4000 series processors. Microsoft is shipping its Surface Laptop 4 on April 15th in the US, Canada, and Japan, starting at $999 for the AMD model and $1,299 for the Intel version — a $300 price gap between the pair.
The difference in pricing likely comes down to the fact that Microsoft isn’t using AMD’s latest 5000 series CPUs here. Instead, Microsoft is using AMD’s Zen 2-based chips for its AMD Ryzen Surface Edition processors. Despite this, performance between the Intel and AMD versions could be rather similar, but we’ll have to wait for full reviews to judge how Microsoft’s choices have landed.
The Surface Laptop 4 color options.Image: Microsoft
These processor improvements allow Microsoft to promise up to 70 percent more performance over the Surface Laptop 3, and some (on paper) battery life gains. Microsoft is promising up to 19 hours of battery life on the 13.5-inch AMD model and up to 17.5 hours on the 15-inch version. The Intel-powered 13.5-inch Surface Laptop 4 is rated up to 17 hours of battery life, while the larger 15-inch model hits 16.5 hours. Both of the Intel versions will also ship with Intel’s latest Iris Xe graphics, which means games like Overwatch will be playable at 1080p ultra.
The Surface Laptop 4 also maintains the same design of the Surface Laptop 3 that shipped in 2019. You’ll be able to pick between the classic platinum Surface style and a new ice blue color on the 13.5-inch models, both of which are Alcantara fabric. Matte black and sandstone are also available in metal options for the 13.5-inch models, while the 15-inch versions are strictly platinum and matte black in metal and no Alcantara fabric.
The Surface Laptop 4 in ice blue.Image: Microsoft
Microsoft hasn’t really updated the rest of the Surface Laptop 4, though. There’s a single USB-C port, one USB-A port, a headphone jack, and Microsoft’s Surface Connect port for charging. There’s still no Thunderbolt support, and the M.2 NVMe SSD is still removable from a slot at the rear of the device.
As a result of the choice between AMD or Intel, the Surface Laptop 4 lineup is pretty complicated this time around. The 13.5-inch base model at $999 is the AMD Ryzen 5 4680U, with 8GB of RAM and 256GB of storage. The Intel base model is the 11th Gen Core i5 1135G7, with 8GB of RAM and 512GB of storage. There will also be a variety of Intel models all the way up to the $2,299 version with a Core i7 processor, 32GB of RAM, and 1TB of storage. A second AMD model with 16GB of RAM and 256GB of storage will ship around eight weeks after launch for $1,199.
Over on the 15-inch side, there are more AMD options starting with the $1,299 AMD Ryzen 7 4980U model with 8GB of RAM and 256GB of storage. You can configure this up to 16GB of RAM and 512GB of storage for $1,699. The Intel 15-inch models start at $1,799 for the Core i7 1185G7 with 16GB of RAM and 512GB of storage, or there’s the option for 32GB of RAM and 1TB of storage for $2,399.
Intel last week debuted the 11th Gen Core “Rocket Lake” desktop processor family, and we had launch-day reviews of the Core i9-11900K flagship and the mid-range Core i5-11600K. Today we bring you the Core i5-11400F—probably the most interesting model in the whole stack. The often-ignored SKU among Intel desktop processors among the past many generations, the Core i5-xx400, is also its most popular among gamers. Popular chips of this kind included the i5-8400, the i5-9400F, and the i5-10400F.
These chips feature the entire Core i5 feature-set at prices below $200, albeit lower clock speeds and locked overclocking. Even within these, Intel introduced a sub-segment of chips that lack integrated graphics, denoted by “F” in the model number; which shave a further $15-20 off the price. The Core i5-11400F starts at just $160, which is an impressive value proposition for gamers who use graphics cards and don’t need the iGPU anyway.
The new “Rocket Lake” microarchitecture brings four key changes that make it the company’s first major innovation for client desktop in several years. First, Intel is introducing the new “Cypress Cove” CPU core that promises an IPC gain of up to 19% over the previous-generation. Next up, is the new UHD 750 integrated graphics powered by the Intel Xe LP graphics architecture, promising up to 50% performance uplift over the UHD 650 Gen9.5 iGPU of the previous generation. Thirdly, a much needed update to the processor’s I/O, including PCI-Express 4.0 for graphics and a CPU-attached NVMe slot; and lastly, an updated memory controller that allows much higher memory overclocking potential, thanks to the introduction of a Gear 2 mode.
The Core i5-11400F comes with a permanently disabled iGPU and a locked multiplier. Intel has still enabled support for memory frequencies of up to DDR4-3200, which is now possible on even the mid-tier H570 and B560 motherboard chipsets. The i5-11400F is a 6-core/12-thread processor clocked at 2.60 GHz, with up to 4.40 GHz Turbo Boost frequency. Each of the processor’s six “Cypress Cove” CPU cores include 512 KB dedicated L2 cache, and the cores share 12 MB of L3 cache. Intel is rating the processor’s TDP at 65 W, just like the other non-K SKUs, although it is possible to tweak these power limits—adjusting PL1 and PL2 is not considered “overclocking” by Intel, so it is not locked.
At $170, the Core i5-11400F has no real competitor from AMD. The Ryzen 5 3600 starts around $200, and the company didn’t bother (yet?) with cheaper Ryzen 5 SKUs based on “Zen 3”. In this review, we take the i5-11400F for a spin to show you if this is really all you need for a mid-priced contemporary gaming rig.
We present several data sets in our Core i5-11400F review: “Gear 1” and “Gear 2” show performance results for the processor operating at stock, with the default power limit setting active, respecting a 65 W TDP. Next up we have two runs with the power limit setting raised to maximum: “Max Power Limit / Gear 1” and “Max Power Limit / Gear 2”. Last but not least, signifying the maximum performance you can possible achieve on this CPU, we have a run “Max Power + Max BCLK”, which operates at 102.9 MHz BCLK—the maximum allowed by the processor, at Gear 1 DDR4-3733, the memory controller won’t run higher.
Alongside the Alienware M15 R5 Ryzen Edition, Dell is also launching a more affordable 15-inch Dell G15 Ryzen Edition gaming laptop. It’s for people who still want to experience AMD’s fast Ryzen 5000 H-series processors, along with an Nvidia RTX 3060 graphics chip, but for less. If the M15 R5’s $2,229.99 starting price is too high, the G15’s $899.99 entry-level configuration might be a more reasonable price point for you to jump in.
The G15’s speckled design might look familiar to you. That’s because Dell actually launched the Intel-based version of this model already, but in China first. This new Ryzen-based laptop is landing first in China as well, on April 30th, followed by a May 4th release elsewhere around the globe.
The starting configuration of the G15 Ryzen Edition will be fairly barebones in terms of RAM and storage, shipping with 8GB of 3,200MHz DDR4 RAM, and 256GB of NVMe M.2 capacity. It packs plenty of power otherwise for a $900 laptop, with a Ryzen 5 5600H hexa-core processor and an Nvidia RTX 3060 with 6GB of VRAM. In case you want something more powerful, the CPU be tweaked up to the Ryzen 7 5800H octa-core CPU, RAM can be added (either through Dell or by opening the laptop yourself), and you can configure it with up to 2TB of solid-state storage. The more powerful processor can also come with a bigger six-cell 86Wh battery, though you’ll get a three-cell 56Wh pack at the $900 mark.
At launch, the G15 can also be configured with a 120Hz refresh rate FHD panel at a fairly standard 250 nits of brightness, or a brighter 300-nit screen with a faster 165Hz refresh rate. Dell says a 360Hz refresh rate screen will be available later in the spring. Dell says the new G15 has adopted an “Alienware-inspired” thermal design to keep it running efficiently, and it certainly looks the part. It’ll come in at least two speckled colors at launch, a green and a grey. Later this year, an all-black model will be available.
The G15 takes some cues from Alienware’s M15 series of much pricier gaming laptops.
This laptop ships by default with non-backlit, spill-resistant keyboard, but there are some upgrades you can make here. The first step up adds orange backlighting beneath the entire keyboard and emphasizes WASD. If orange doesn’t do it for you, there’s a four-zone RGB backlit keyboard that you can customize for a more colorful presentation.
If the Ryzen Edition G15 is anything like last year’s G5 15 SE in terms of performance, I’m excited to test it out. Assuming that it does, even the lower-end model should be reasonably powerful for people trying to stretch their dollar as far as possible.
If you really want the Intel version, Dell says a variant of it will launch in the US on April 13th for $799.99, but it’ll feature a last-gen 10th Gen Intel processor. Dell included this bit of information practically as a footnote, to give you an idea of how much emphasis it’s putting behind Ryzen this time around. The starting model features a Core i5-10200H quad-core CPU with Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 1650 graphics chip. Upgrading can net you the vastly more powerful Core i7-10870H octa-core CPU with the RTX 3060, and you can get Thunderbolt ports. Dell didn’t share the price for the high-end Intel model.
for the PC version on Steam. The sequel follows the saga of Ethan Winters, this time with some apparently very large vampire ladies. Based on what we’ve seen, you’ll benefit from having one of the
best graphics cards
along with something from our list of the
best CPUs for gaming
when the game arrives on May 7.
The eighth entry in the series (VIII from Village), this will be the first Resident Evil to feature ray tracing technology. The developers have tapped AMD to help with the ray tracing implementation, however, so it’s not clear whether it will run on Nvidia’s RTX cards at launch, or if it will require a patch — and it’s unlikely to get DLSS support, though it could make for a stunning showcase for AMD’s FidelityFX Super Resolution if AMD can pull some strings.
We’ve got about a month to wait before the official launch. In the meantime, here are the official system requirements.
Minimum System Requirements for Resident Evil Village
Capcom notes that in either case, the game targets 1080p at 60 fps, though the framerate “might drop in graphics-intensive scenes.” While the minimum requirements specify using the “Prioritize Performance” setting, it’s not clear what settings are used for the recommended system.
The Resident Evil Village minimum system requirements are also for running the game without ray tracing, with a minimum requirement of an RTX 2060 (and likely future AMD GPUs like Navi 23), and a recommendation of at least an RTX 2070 or RX 6700 XT if you want to enable ray tracing. There’s no mention of installation size yet, so we’ll have to wait and see just how much of our SSD the game wants to soak up.
The CPU specs are pretty tame, and it’s very likely you can use lower spec processors. For example, the Ryzen 3 1200 is the absolute bottom of the entire Ryzen family stack, with a 4-core/4-thread configuration running at up to 3.4GHz. The Core i5-7500 also has a 4-core/4-thread configuration, but runs at up to 3.8GHz, and it’s generally higher in IPC than first generation Ryzen.
You should be able to run the game on even older/slower CPUs, though perhaps not at 60 fps. The recommended settings are a decent step up in performance potential, moving to 6-core/12-thread CPUs for both AMD and Intel, which are fairly comparable processors.
The graphics card will almost certainly play a bigger role in performance than the CPU, and while the baseline GTX 1050 Ti and RX 560 4GB are relatively attainable (the game apparently requires, maybe, 4GB or more VRAM), we wouldn’t be surprised if that’s with some form of dynamic resolution scaling enabled. Crank up the settings and the GTX 1070 and RX 5700 are still pretty modest cards, though the AMD card is significantly faster — not that you can find either in stock at acceptable prices these days, as we show in our
GPU pricing index
. But if you want to run the full-fat version of Resident Evil Village, with all the DXR bells and whistles at 1440p or 4K, you’re almost certainly going to need something far more potent.
Full size images: RE Village RT On / RE Village RT OffAMD showed a preview of the game running with and without ray tracing during its
Where Gaming Begins, Episode 3
presentation in early March. The pertinent section of the video starts at the 9:43 mark, though we’ve snipped the comparison images above for reference. The improved lighting and reflections are clearly visible in the RT enabled version, but critically we don’t know how well the game runs with RT enabled.
We’re looking forward to testing Resident Evil Village on a variety of GPUs and CPUs next month when it launches on PC, Xbox, and PlayStation. Based on what we’ve seen from other RT-enabled games promoted by AMD (e.g. Dirt 5), we expect frame rates will take a significant hit.
But like we said, this may also be the debut title for FidelityFX Super Resolution, and if so, that’s certainly something we’re eager to test. What we’d really like to see is a game that supports both FidelityFX Super Resolution and DLSS, just so we could do some apples-to-apples comparisons, but it may be a while before such a game appears.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
