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.
AMD is releasing Adrenalin driver 21.4.1 today with several improvements for some of the best graphics cards, as well as a host of new updates to AMD Link and Radeon Software. These include features such as CPU monitoring in the Radeon Software, a new GPU stress-testing utility, and a Windows 10 app for AMD Link.
AMD Link — AMD’s remote desktop program — has been updated to version 4.0, and includes an all-new Windows 10 app for use on any Windows 10 device. No longer are you constrained to using AMD Link on a smart TV or Arm-based smartphone/tablet. AMD also added a few extra features including 144 fps streaming support, trackpad sensitivity support, and 5.1 surround sound support.
For Radeon Software, AMD added several additional features that should make the app easier to use and more useful. In the streaming department, AMD has added a new automatic quality function that allows Radeon Software to dynamically adjust your stream quality (if you’re streaming from Radeon Software), to ensure a stable and good quality stream. Plus, you can now choose which monitor you want your video to stream from if you have multiple monitors.
Probably the most exciting feature for enthusiasts is the addition of CPU monitoring inside Radeon Software specifically for Ryzen CPUs. In the past, Radeon Software’s performance metric utility was limited to monitoring the GPU. Now it has been upgraded to measure Ryzen CPUs as well.
For users who are color blind, AMD has added a new collard deficiency correction tool that allows users to adjust his or her monitor to the three major color blindness types.
A few other noteworthy additions are an updated bug reporting tool from AMD that will automatically pop up when an error occurs on your system to help AMD find and kill more bugs. Another one is AMD crash defender, which is quite interesting in that it will stop a predicted crash or BSOD from occurring on your system. If this system really works, it should be a really handy feature to have.
Finally, AMD has added DX12 support to Radeon Anti-Lag, full support for AV1 decode and DRM-protected content, and new custom install options that allow you to choose how much AMD’s software gets installed (if at all) with the Radeon drivers.
It goes without a doubt that Nvidia will introduce its new mainstream GeForce RTX 3050-series GPUs sooner or later, but right now we do not know when Nvidia will actually launch its new inexpensive graphics processors. According to VideoCardz, Lenovo inadvertently listed its Legion gaming notebooks with the new GeForce RTX 3050 and GeForce RTX 3050 Ti GPUs. The misstep was quickly noticed, and the PC maker removed mentions of the new products, but Google has cached the page and we can see that for a time the RTX 3050 / RTX 3050 Ti ewre options for Lenovo’s Legion gaming notebooks.
(Image credit: Lenovo)
As reported, Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 3050 family will based on the yet-to-be-unveiled GA107 graphics processor and will consist of two base models: the RTX 3050 with 2048 CUDA cores as well as the RTX 3050 Ti with 2560 CUDA cores. The new GPUs will be paired with 4GB of GDDR6 memory that will use a 128-bit interface, something which was confirmed by Lenovo, reports VideoCardz.
Lenovo will offer Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 3050 and RTX 3050 Ti GPUs inside its Legion 5 Pro laptops equipped with a 16-inch display and based on AMD’s Ryzen 7 5800H and Ryzen 5 5600H processors. Given dimensions of the notebooks, Nvidia can set high TGP targets (up to 95W) and GPU clocks (up to 1500 MHz base, up to 1740 MHz boost, see details in the table below), so it is logical to expect Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 3050/RTX 3050 to perform fairly well with the Legion 5 Pro. Meanwhile, Lenovo’s TGP targets are actually higher than 80W TGPs leaked several weeks ago.
While Lenovo’s listing undoubtedly confirms that Nvidia is on track to release its GeForce RTX 3050-series family shortly, it does not reveal exactly when the new GPU family ships. Considering that Lenovo began to offer the new GPUs, we can guess that the launch is imminent, though there is no firm introduction date.
Many enthusiasts are waiting for Nvidia to launch the GA107 GPU on their entry-level Ampere-based graphics cards for desktop PCs. Unfortunately at this point, mobile GeForce RTX 3050 and RTX 3050 Ti graphics processors give little idea about the performance of desktop graphics cards carrying the same model numbers. Since Lenovo manages to run the mobile GeForce RTX 3050-series GPUs at up to 95W, it is logical to expect desktop boards to feature a higher TGP and higher performance. Unfortunately, we have no idea how high TGP and clocks of desktop GeForce RTX 3050 and RTX 3050 Ti are going to be.
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.
With a Ryzen 9 5900X and an RTX 3080, both liquid-cooled for quiet operation in a compact case, Corsair’s One a200 is easy to recommend–if you can afford it and find it in stock. Just know that your upgrade options are more limited than larger gaming rigs.
For
+ Top-end performance
+ Space-saving, quiet shell
+ Liquid-cooled GPU and CPU
Against
– Expensive
– Limited upgrade options
For a whole host of reasons, AMD’s
Ryzen 9 5900X
and Nvidia’s
RTX 3080
have been two of the hardest-to-find PC components since late last year. But Corsair has combined them both in a handy, compact, liquid-cooled bundle it calls the Corsair One a200.
The company’s vertically-oriented One desktop
debuted in 2018
and has since been regularly updated to accommodate current high-end components. This time around, the options include either AMD or Intel’s latest processors (the latter called the One i200), and Nvidia’s penultimate consumer GPU, the RTX 3080.
Not much has changed in terms of the system’s design, other than the addition of a USB Type-C port up front (where an HDMI port was on previous models). But with liquid cooling handling thermals for both the CPU and graphics in a still-impressively compact package, there’s really little reason to change what was already one of the
best gaming PCs
for those who want something small.
The only real concern is pricing. At $3,799 as tested (including 32GB of RAM, a 1TB SSD and a 2TB HDD), you’re definitely paying a premium for the compact design and slick, quiet cooling. But with the scarcity of these core components and the RTX 3080 regularly
selling for well over $2,000 on its own on eBay
, it’s tough to discern what constitutes ‘value’ in the gaming desktop world at the moment. You may be able to find a system with similar components for less, but it won’t likely be this small or slick.
Design of the Corsair One a200
Just like the
One i160
model we looked at in 2019, the Corsair One a200 is a quite compact (14.96 x 7.87 x 6.93 inches) tower of matte-black metal with RGB LED lines running down its front. To get some sense of how small this system is compared to more traditional gaming rigs, we called
Alienware’s Aurora R11
“fairly compact” when we reviewed it, and it’s 18.9 x 17 x 8.8 inches, taking up more than twice the desk space of Corsair’s One a200.
The 750-watt SFX power supply in the a200 is mounted at the bottom, pulling in air that’s expelled at the top with the help of a fan. And the heat from the CPU and GPU will mostly be expelled out either side, as both are liquid cooled, with radiators mounted against the side panels.
The primary external difference with the updated a200 over previous models is the replacement of an HDMI port that used to live up front next to the headphone/mic combo jack and pair of USB-A ports. It’s been replaced with a USB-C port. That makes for three front-facing USB ports, a surprising amount of front-panel connectivity for a system so compact. But there are only six more USB ports around back (more on that shortly).
Overall, while the design of the One a200 is pretty familiar at this point, it still looks and feels great, with all the external panels made out of metal. Just note that the matte finish does easily pick up finger smudges.
Front: 2x USB 3.2 Gen 1 (5 Gbps) Type-A, 1 USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) Type-C ; Combination Mic/Headphone Jack; Rear: 4x USB USB 3.2 Gen 1 (5 Gbps) Type-A, 2x USB 3.2 Gen 2 (Type-A, Type-C), Ethernet, HD Audio, 3x DisplayPort, 1x HDMI
Video Output
(3) DisplayPort 1.4a (1) HDMI 2.1
Power Supply
750W Corsair SFX 80 Plus Platinum
Case
Corsair One Aluminum/Steel
Operating System
Windows 10 Home 64-Bit
Dimensions
14.96 x 7.87 x 6.937 inches (380 x 200 x 176 mm)
Price As Configured
$3,799
Ports and Upgradability of the Corsair One a200
Since the Corsair One a200 is built around a compact Mini-ITX motherboard (specifically the ASRock B550 Phantom Gaming-ITX/ax), you won’t quite get the same amount of ports that you would expect with a larger desktop. Since we already covered the three USB ports and audio jack up front, let’s take a look at the back.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Here you’ll find four USB 3.2 Gen 1 (5 Gbps) Type-A ports, plus two USB 3.2 Gen 2 (one Type-A and one Type-C). Also here is a 2.5 Gb Ethernet jack, three analog audio connections and connectors for the small antennae. The ASrock board also includes a pair of video connectors, but since you’ll want to use the ports on RTX 3080 instead, Corsair has blocked them off behind the I/O plate so most people wouldn’t even know they’re there.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
The video connections from the RTX 3080 graphics card live next to the Corsair SF750 power supply, and come in the form of three DisplayPort 1.4a ports and a single HDMI 2.1 connector.
As for internal upgradability, you can get at most of the parts if you’re comfortable dismantling expensive PC hardware. But you can’t add any RAM or storage without swapping out what’s already there (or at least without removing the whole motherboard, more on that soon). That said, the 32GB of Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200 RAM, 1TB PCIe 4.0 Force MP600 SSD and 2TB Seagate 2.5-inch hard drive that’s already here are a potent cadre of components. If you need more RAM and storage (as well as more CPU cores), there’s a $4,199 configuration we’ll detail later.
To get inside the Corsair One a200, you don’t need any tools, but you’ll want to be a bit careful. Press a button at the rear top of the case (you have to press it quite hard) and the top, which also houses a fan, will pop up. But before you go yanking it away in haste, note that it’s attached via a fan cable that you can disconnect after first fishing the plug out from a hole inside the case.
To access the rest of the system you’ll have to remove two screws from each side. But again, don’t be careless, as radiators are attached to both side panels via short tubes, so the sides are a bit like upside-down gull-wing doors. You can’t really remove them without disconnecting the cooling plates from the CPU and GPU.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
It’s fairly easy to remove the RAM, although the 32GB of Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200 occupies both of the slots. The 2TB Seagate 2.5-inch hard drive is also accessible from the left side, wedged under the PCIe riser cable that’s routed to the GPU on the other side.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
At least the 1TB Force MP600 SSD on this model is mounted on the front of the motherboard under a heatsink, rather than behind the board on the i160 version we looked at a couple years ago.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
You can open the right panel as well, though there’s not much to do here as the space is taken up by the GPU, a large radiator and a pair of fans mounted on the heatsink to move the RTX 3080’s heat through the radiator and out the vents on the side.
As with previous models, you should be able to replace the RTX 3080 with an air-cooled graphics card at some point, provided it has axial rather than blower-style cooling, and that it fits within the physical constraints of the chassis. But given that the RTX 3080 is the
best graphics card
you can buy, you may be ready for a whole new system by the time you start thinking about swapping out the graphics card here.
Aside from wishing there were more USB ports on the motherboard, I have no real complaints about the hardware here. If I were spending this much, I’d prefer a 2TB SSD, but at least the 1TB model Corsair has included is a PCIe 4.0 drive for the best speed possible. Technically the ASRock motherboard here has a second PCIe 3.0 M.2 slot, where you could install a second SSD. But it’s housed on the back of the motherboard, which would mean fairly major disassembly in cramped quarters, and remember that you’d have to disconnect the pump/cooling plate from the CPU before even attempting to do that.
Gaming Performance on the Corsair One a200
With AMD’s 12-core Ryzen 9 5900X and Nvidia’s RTX 3080 running the gaming show inside Corsair’s One a200 — and both of them liquid-cooled — we expected Corsair’s compact power tower to spit out impressive frame rates.
We pitted the a200 against
MSI’s Aegis RS 11th
, which also has an RX 3080 but an 8-core Intel Rocket Lake Core i7-11700K, and a couple other recent gaming rigs we’ve tested.
Alienware’s Aurora Ryzen Edition R10
sports a stepped down Ryzen 7 5800X and a
Radeon RX 6800XT
. And
HP’s Omen 30L
, which we looked at near the end of 2020, was outfitted with a last-generation Intel Core i9-10900K and an RTX 3080 to call its own.
While the Corsair One a200 didn’t walk away from the impressive competition, it was almost always in the lead in our gaming tests. And that’s all the more impressive given most of the systems it competes with are much larger.
Image 1 of 5
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 5
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 5
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 5
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 5 of 5
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
On the Shadow of the Tomb Raider benchmark (highest settings), the game ran at 147 fps at 1080p on the One a200, and 57 fps at 4K. The former ties it with the Aegis for first place here, and the latter beats both the Aegis and the Omen 30L, just slightly, giving Corsair’s system an uncontested win.
In Grand Theft Auto V (very high settings), the Corsair system basically repeated its previous performance, tying the MSI machine at 1080p and pulling one frame ahead of both the Omen and the MSI at 4K.
On the Far Cry New Dawn benchmark, the MSI Aegis pulled ahead at 1080p by 11 fps, but the One a200 still managed to tie the MSI and HP systems at 4K.
After trailing a bit in Far Cry at 1080p, the One a200 pulled ahead in Red Dead Redemption 2 (medium settings) at the same resolution, with its score of 117 fps beating everything else. And at 4K, the Corsair system’s 51 fps was again one frame ahead of both the MSI and Alienware systems.
Last up in Borderlands 3 (badass settings), the Corsair system stayed true to its impressive form. Its score of 137 fps at 1080 was a frame ahead of the MSI (and ahead of everything else). And at 4K, its score of 59 fps was only tied by the HP Omen.
Aside from the One a200’s gaming performance being impressive for its size, this is also one of the quietest high-end gaming rigs I’ve tested in a long time. Lots of heat shot out of the top of the tower while I played the Ancient Gods expansion of Doom Eternal, but fan noise was a constant low-end whirr. The large fan at the top does its job without doing much to make itself known, and the radiators on either side help move heat out of the case without adding to the impressively quiet noise floor.
We also subjected the Corsair One a200 to our Metro Exodus stress test gauntlet, in which we run the benchmark at the Extreme preset 15 times to simulate roughly half an hour of gaming. The Corsair tower ran the game at an average of 71.13 fps, with very little variation. The system started out the test at 71.37 fps on the first run, and dipped just to 71.05 fps on the final run. That’s a change of just a third of a frame per second throughout our stress test. It’s clear both in terms of consistent performance and low noise levels that the One a200’s cooling system is excelling at its job.
During the Metro Exodus runs, the CPU ran at an average clock speed of 4.2 GHz and an average temperature of 74.9 degrees Celsius (166.8 degrees Fahrenheit). The GPU’s average clock speed was 1.81 GHz, with an average temperature of 68.7 degrees Celsius (155.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
Productivity Performance
While the Ryzen 9 5900X isn’t quite as potentially speedy on paper as the top-end 5950X (thanks to a slightly lower top boost clock and four fewer cores), it’s still a very powerful 12-core CPU. And paired with Nvidia’s RTX 3080, along with 32GB of RAM and a fast PCIe 4.0 SSD, the Corsair One a200 is just as potent in productivity and workstation tasks as it is playing games.
Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 3
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 3
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
On Geekbench 5, an overall performance benchmark, the Corsair system was just behind the leading systems in the single-core tests, with its score of 1,652. But on the multi-core test, it’s 11,968 was well ahead of everything else.
The Corsair PCIe Gen 4 SSD in the a200 blew past competing systems, transferring our 25GB of files at a rate of 1.27 GBps, with only the HP Omen’s WD SSD also managing to get close to the 1GBps mark.
And on our Handbrake video editing test, the Corsair One a200 transcoded a 4K video to 1080p in an impressive 4 minutes and 44 seconds, while all the other systems took well more than 5 minutes to complete the same task. Video editors in particular will be able to make good use of this system’s 12 cores and 24 threads of CPU might.
Software and Warranty for the Corsair One a200
The Corsair One a200 ships with a two-year warranty (plus lifetime customer support) and very little pre-installed software. Aside from Windows 10 Home, you get the company’s iCue software, which can be used to control both the lights as well as the system fans. The company even seems to have avoided the usual bloat of streaming apps and casual games like Candy Crush, which ship with almost all Windows machines these days.
Configuration Options for the Corsair One a200
If you’re after the AMD-powered Corsair a200 specifically, you have two configuration options. There’s the model we tested (Corsair One a200 CS-90200212), with a 12-core Ryzen 9 5900X, 32GB of RAM, a 1TB PCIe Gen 4 SSD, 2TB hard drive, and an RTX 3080 for $3,799. Or you can pay $400 more ($4,199) to step up to the 16-core Ryzen 5950X and double the RAM and SSD to 64GB and 2TB respectively (Corsair One Pro a200 CS-9040010). The latter configuration is overkill for gaming, but the extra storage, RAM and four more CPU cores are well worth the extra money if you can actually make use of them.
For those who aren’t wedded to AMD, there’s also the Intel-based Corsair One i200, which now includes 11th Gen “Rocket Lake” CPU options, with up to a Core i9-11900K and an RTX 3080, albeit running on a last-gen Z490 platform. It starts a little lower at $3,599. But that model is currently out of stock with any current-generation Intel and Nvidia components, leaving exact pricing up in the air as of publicatioon.
We tried to do some comparison pricing, and were able to find a similarly equipped HP Omen 30L, as HP often sells gaming rigs on the more-affordable side of the spectrum. But when we wrote this, all Omen 30L systems with current-generation graphics cards were sold out on HP’s site. We were able to
find an Omen 30L on Amazon
with an RTX 3080 and an Intel Core i9-10850K, along with similar RAM and storage as our Corsair a200, for $3,459. That’s about $340 less than the a200, but the Omen 30L is also much larger than the a200 and has a now last-generation CPU with fewer cores, plus a slower SSD.
Bottom Line
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
With one of
the best CPUs
and graphics cards, both liquid cooled and quiet, in an attractive, compact package, Corsair’s One a200 offers a whole lot to like. The $3,799 asking price is certainly daunting, but in these times when that graphics card alone is selling on eBay regularly for more than $2,000, the Ryzen 9 5900X often sells for close to $800, and even most desktops with current-gen graphics cards are mostly sold out, it’s tough to which high-end gaming rig is more or less of a bargain than something else.
If you spend some time looking you can probably find a system with similar specs as the Corsair One a200 for a bit less. But unless and until the ongoing mining craze subsides, that system probably won’t cost substantially less than Corsair’s pricing. And with its impressively compact shell, quiet operation, and top-end performance in both gaming and productivity, the a200 is easy to recommend for those who can afford it. Just know that upgrading will be a bit more difficult and limiting than with a larger desktop, and if you need lots of USB ports, you may want to invest in a hub.
Home/Component/CPU/Leaked Intel roadmap points to new Alder Lake-S CPUs coming Q3 2021
João Silva 5 hours ago CPU
A newly leaked Intel roadmap has given us a hint at what to expect from Intel in the coming months. As it turns out, Intel Alder Lake-S could be landing a bit sooner than anticipated, with this roadmap showing plans for a Q3 2021 release.
The roadmap leaked by @9550pro refers to Intel workstation products. Divided into “Expert WS”, “Mainstream WS”, and “Entry WS”, the roadmap hints at a release of the Alder Lake workstation platform in Q3 2021. The platform seems to feature the Intel W680 chipset, 125W (K processors), 65W, and 35W processors with up to 16 cores, 20 PCIe lanes, and the LGA1700 socket.
image credit: @9550pro
The roadmap further informs us of an 8+8 SKU, which is set to enter production starting on the 35th week of 2021. A 6+0 SKU is also confirmed, due to enter production on the 41st week of 2021.
It’s worth noting the roadmap might not be updated to Intel’s current plans. As seen by the image, Intel Rocket Lake-S shows up with a release in 2020, but these processors only just arrived at the end of March.
KitGuru says: When do you expect to see Alder Lake processors hitting the shelves? Are you interested in seeing what the platform upgrade brings to the table?
Become a Patron!
Check Also
AMD will bring Ryzen 5000G APUs to retail later this year
Earlier this week, AMD officially announced the Ryzen 5000G series of processors with integrated Radeon …
Home/Software & Gaming/Days Gone PC features and improvements announced, releasing on May 18th
Matthew Wilson 2 days ago Software & Gaming
We’ve known for a while now that Days Gone is the next major PS4 console exclusive to be coming to PC. Now, we have a date and our first look at the PC version in action ahead of launch next month.
Days Gone is coming to PC on the 18th of May on Steam and the Epic Games Store. Similarly to last year’s Horizon Zero Dawn release, Days Gone will support 21:9 ultrawide displays, third-party controllers like the Xbox gamepad, as well as keyboard/mouse with remapping functions.
In the trailer above, we can see the PC version in action, running at 4K and 60 frames per second. The PC version will also include improved graphics over the PS4 version and unlocked frame rates, so you can run it well above 60 frames per second as long as you have the hardware for it. Speaking of hardware, below you will find the minimum and recommended PC specifications for the game:
Minimum:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: Intel Core [email protected] or AMD FX [email protected]
The PC version includes increased level of detail, field of view and foliage draw distance, as well as the usual graphical customisation options we expect to balance fidelity and performance. The Photo Mode is also included for those who enjoy taking impressive screenshots.
Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.
KitGuru Says: I skipped Days Gone on the PS4 but I’m really looking forward to picking up this PC version. Are any of you planning on grabbing this next month?
Become a Patron!
Check Also
Xbox controller ‘stick drift’ lawsuit will not go to trial
Last year, we learned that Nintendo isn’t the only company facing lawsuits over gaming controller …
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.
Update: The Shuffle has ended. Did you get selected? If so, let us know in the comments, you lucky dog!Original Story: The Newegg Shuffle continues, with another chance to potentially buy one of the best graphics cards — or one of the best CPUs. Today’s Shuffle has several options for GeForce RTX 3070 and GeForce RTX 3060 graphics cards, one Radeon RX 6700 XT and mobo bundle, along with AMD’s Ryzen 7 5800X and Intel’s Core i7-10700. and bundles on tap. The graphics cards rank in the upper segment of our GPU benchmarks hierarchy, and prices are at least a bit lower than what we’ve seen in our eBay GPU pricing index.
For those unfamiliar with the process, Newegg Shuffle uses a lottery format. You select the component(s) you’d like to potentially buy. Then there’s a drawing later today, and the ‘winners’ get notified by email with the chance to purchase the part (only one) within a several hour period. Based on our experience, you won’t get selected most of the time. But hey, it’s free to try.
Today’s options and prices consist of the following:
Asus ROG Strix GeForce RTX 3070 White for $840
Asus TUF Gaming GeForce RTX 3070 for $770
Asus GeForce RTX 3060 Ultimate KO for $520
Asus TUF Gaming GeForce RTX 3060 for $510
Gigabyte Aorus RX 6700 XT Elite with X570 Aorus Elite WiFi for $1,010
Gigabyte RTX 3060 Eagle with B550 Aorus Elite for $615
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X for $429
Intel Core i7-10700 for $255
All of the graphics card prices are roughly 50-60% higher than the official launch MSRPs from AMD and Nvidia, though these are third-party custom cards that may come with extra features. The RTX 3070 cards are perhaps the best of the bunch, with performance rivaling the previous generation RTX 2080 Ti for a lower price. And if you like RGB and bling, the ROG Strix card certainly has you covered.
The two CPUs are perhaps a bit less exciting, except they’re both selling for less than MSRP. AMD’s Ryzen 7 5800X isn’t quite as difficult to find in stock as the more sought after Ryzen 9 5900X and 5950X, but it’s still a good choice, particularly with a price that’s $20 below AMD’s official MSRP. Intel’s previous generation Core i7-10700 on the other hand is merely a decent CPU but without any overclocking support — basically the Comet Lake equivalent of the Core i9-9900 — but it’s also a viable pick at just $255.
With component shortages plaguing the PC industry, not to mention the smartphone and automotive industries, the latest word is that prices aren’t likely to return to ‘normal’ throughout 2021. If you can keep chugging along with whatever your PC currently has, that’s the best option, as otherwise prices are painful for all of the Nvidia Ampere and AMD RDNA2 GPUs.
The current Newegg shuffle ends in just over an hour. Good luck!
Courtesy of Phoronix; It appears that the latest build of Windows 10 is the most optimal operating system to use for Intel’s new Core i9-11900K Rocket Lake CPU. Tests show the i9 wining more benchmarks in a Windows 10 environment compared to Linux Ubuntu.
For the test bench, Phoronix ran a core i9-119000K with 32GB of 3200MHz RAM, with 1TB of SSD storage. on a Maximus XIII Hero.
As for the operating systems, Phoronix used the latest build of Windows 10 Pro, version 19042, and the latest version of Ubuntu, version 20.10, and version 5.12 of Linux.
Performance Chart Windows 10 vs Ubuntu
Test:
Ubuntu Score
Windows 10 Score
WebP Image Encode 1.1: Encode Time
15.21
13.37
Zstd Compression 1.4.9: Decompression Speed
4784.2
4422.9
Crafty 25.2: Nodes Per Seccond
9976038
11303083
Blender 2.92: BMW: Render Time
132.49
155.59
NeatBench 5: FPS
17.4
18.2
IndigoBench 4.4
4.737
4.911
Selenium: StyleBench Chrome: Runs Per Minute
46.02
50.25
Selenium: Speedometer Chrome: Runs Per minute
186.8
174.7
The benchmarks posted above are just a few of the tests Phoronix conducted on both Windows 10 (see how to get Windows 10 for free) and Ubuntu. Overall, however, comparing all of Phoronix’s tests shows that Windows 10 Pro wins 61.5% of the overall tests compared to Ubuntu which netted a score of just 38.5%.
Phoronix also tested the 11900K’s integrated Xe graphics on both operating systems, and Windows 10 came out with an even higher win rate. In the eight graphics tests conducted, Ubuntu Linux managed only a single win, though in either case the integrated GPU it’s nowhere close to matching the best graphics cards.
This is unusual behavior coming from Intel’s processors; due to Linux’s superior resource management, we normally see Linux operating systems take the win compared to Windows 10. But with Rocket Lake, it appears the opposite is now true.
We don’t know why the tests came out this way, but presumably, Microsoft has added some extra optimizations to Windows 10 we don’t know about. We will have to do our own research into the matter to see what is really going on.
In our tests, the Core i9-11900K is faster for gaming than most of the best CPUs, but is outpaced by the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X. When we compared the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X vs the Core i9-11900K in a seven-round face-off, the Ryzen took five rounds.
Corsair has just announced two all-new models of its Corsair One pre-built, named the a200 and i200. Both models will be upgraded with the latest hardware from Intel, AMD, and Nvidia.
Despite measuring in at just 12 liter’s, Corsair promises an uncompromised desktop experience with the Corsair One. Thanks to dual liquid cooling solutions for both the CPU and GPU, you can expect high performance out of the system’s components.
You also get the same amount of I/O as you would on a standard computer tower, with the front panel including a 3.5mm audio jack, two USB 3.0 ports and a single USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C port.
Meanwhile, the rear I/O will change depending on which model you choose, but either way, you will get the same amount of connectivity as you would on a standard mini ITX desktop, so expect plenty of display outputs, and plenty of USB ports as well as WiFi 6.
Corsair One a200 & i200 Specifications
a200
i200
CPU:
Up to a Ryzen 9 5900X
Up to a Core i9-11900K
Motherboard:
AMD B550 Mini-ITX Board
Intel Z490
Memory:
Up to 32GB
Up to 32GB
Graphics Card:
GeForce RTX 3080
GeForce RTX 3080
SSD:
Up to a 1TB NVME Gen 4.0 Drive
Up to a 1TB NVME Gen 4.0 Drive
Hard Drive:
Up to 2TB
Up to 2TB
Power Supply
750W 80 Plus Platinum
750W 80 Plus Platinum
The a200 will be based on AMD’s latest hardware and will come with a B550 chipset motherboard and your choice of a Ryzen 5 5600X, Ryzen 7 5800X, or Ryzen 9 5900X. You will also get up to 32GB of RAM, up to 3TB of SSD and hard disk storage, and a 750W SFX PSU.
The i200 on the other hand will feature Intel’s latest Rocket Lake platform, powered by a Z490 motherboard and up to a Core i9-11900K. The memory, storage, and PSU configuration remain the same here as is on the a200.
Both models will also be getting an RTX 3080 for graphics horsepower featuring a massive 10240 CUDA cores and 12GB of GDDR6X, all in a form factor measuring just 12 liters.
Corsair is currently listing a model of the a200 at $3,799.99 and the i200 at $3,599.99, though it’s possible there may be more options later.
The Corsair One has been one of the most compact high-performance PCs you can buy on the market today, so it’s great to see Corsair updating the chassis with the latest CPUs and GPUs, and we expect to see it in ours labs soon.
AMD has announced a new version of its Ryzen 5000 desktop processors — the Ryzen 5000 G-Series, which (like AMD’s previous G-Series offerings) adds an integrated GPU to the company’s existing Ryzen processors.
The company is launching six new APUs today. There are three 65W chips for more powerful machines — an eight-core Ryzen 7 5700G model, a six-core Ryzen 5 5600G, and a quad-core Ryzen 3 5300G — along with a trio of 35W GE chips with slightly less power and thermal headroom. And like their GPU-less counterparts, the new chips use AMD’s 7nm process and feature its Zen 3 architecture.
AMD Ryzen 5000 G-Series APUs
Model
Cores/
Threads
TDP
Base / Boost Frequency
(GHz)
GPU Compute Units
GPU clock speed
Model
Cores/
Threads
TDP
Base / Boost Frequency
(GHz)
GPU Compute Units
GPU clock speed
Ryzen 7 5700G
8C/16T
65W
3.8GHz / 4.6GHz
8
2,000MHz
Ryzen 7 5700GE
8C/16T
35W
3.2GHz / 4.6GHz
8
2,000MHz
Ryzen 5 5600G
6C/12T
65W
3.9GHz / 4.4GHz
7
1,900MHz
Ryzen 5 5600GE
6C/12T
35W
3.4GHz / 4.4GHz
7
1,900MHz
Ryzen 3 5300G
4C/8T
65W
4.0GHz / 4.2GHz
6
1,700MHz
Ryzen 3 5300GE
4C/8T
35W
3.6GHz / 4.2GHz
6
1,700MHz
The integrated GPUs here are nothing to write home about: they’re based on AMD’s legacy Vega platform instead of its newer RDNA / Navi process that’s used in its latest Radeon GPUs. But they do look capable enough for midrange gaming, particularly if you’re only interested in playing less demanding games like Overwatch, Rocket League, or Fortnite.
To start, the new chips will only be available as part of pre-built OEM systems — similar to AMD’s Ryzen 4000 APUs — but the company promises that this time, it’ll be offering the chips directly to customers interested in using them in their own custom-made machines sometime later this year.
Now that Intel has finally launched its 3rd Generation Xeon Scalable ‘Ice Lake’ processors for servers, it is only a matter of time before the company releases its Xeon W-series CPUs featuring the same architecture for workstations. Apparently, some of these upcoming processors are already in the wild evaluated by workstation vendors.
Puget Systems recently built a system based on the yet-to-be-announced Intel Xeon W-3335 processor clocked at 3.40 GHz using Gigabyte’s single-socket MU72-SU0 motherboard, 128 GB of DDR4 memory (using eight 16GB modules), and Nvidia’s Quadro RTX 4000 graphics card. Exact specifications of the CPU are unknown, but given its ’3335‘ model number, we’d speculate that this is an entry-level model. The workstation vendor is obviously evaluating the new Ice Lake platform for workstations from every angle, yet it has published a benchmark result of the machine in its PugetBench for Premiere Pro 0.95.1.
The Intel Xeon W-3335-based system scored 926 overall points (standard export: 88.2; standard live playback: 126.1; effects: 63.6; GPU score: 63.6). For comparison, a system powered by AMD’s 12-core Ryzen 5900X equipped with 16GB of RAM and a GeForce RTX 3080 scored 915 overall points (standard export: 100.9; standard live playback: 79.6; effects: 93.9; GPU score: 100.7).
Given that we do not know exact specifications of the Intel X-3335 CPU, it is hard to make any conclusions about its performance, especially keeping in mind that the platform drivers may not be ready for an Ice Lake-W. Yet, at least we can now make some assumptions about ballpark performance of the CPU.
Intel has not disclosed what to expect from its Xeon W-series ‘Ice Lake’ processors, but in general the company tends to offer key features of its server products to its workstation customers as well. In case of the Xeon W-3335 it is evident that the CPU maintained an eight-channel memory subsystem, though we do not know anything about the number of PCIe lanes it supports.
In any case, since workstation vendors are already testing the new Xeon-W CPUs, expect them to hit the market shortly.
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.
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.
