If you're after low-power computing then this is a good, basic processor to get work done. Based on the 2016 14nm Apollo Lake architecture it is designed for mobile efficiency and comes in a range of laptops from budget to mid-tier. It uses about 4 to 6 watts under load (yes, four to six whole watts) and generally idles under 2 watts.
It has four cores with four threads and has a 1.1GHz base clock with a 2.2GHz boost, with the included HD 500 series graphics boasting 12 execution units running at up to 700MHz, although information regarding this is limited given its budget application.
If you're processing data then forget anything with this. Although possible, it'll take forever as you're limited to 256k of L1 and 2MB of L2 cache - no L3 at all. The included graphics won't help you here either.
For everyday processing, or a cheap laptop for the kids, this is a decent processor but throw more than 2 or 3 basic tasks at it and it flounders. Anything more complex than everyday word processing, internet and multimedia is beyond it, but given that's what the majority of users will be doing this isn't an issue.
The bonus? Ultra-light, thin and quiet latops with passive cooling and sub- $250USD price points. Not bad! [Jul '19boingk]
The Ryzen 9 5900X is second in AMD’s line-up of new Zen 3 CPUs. The 12-core hyper-threaded processor has base/boost clock speeds of 3.7/4.8 GHz, a 70 MB cache and a TDP of 105W. The 5900X took center stage in the 5000 series launch presentation where AMD gunned for Intel’s “best gaming CPU” crown. They showed the 5900X as being 26% better for gaming than the previous generation’s Ryzen 9 3900XT, attributing this to the new architecture’s faster single core speeds and lower latency. AMD also stated that the 5900X achieves, on average, 6.8% faster gaming performance than Intel’s 10-core i9-10900K. The details around AMD’s testing were not disclosed but it is safe to assume that 6.8% is the highest average lead that AMD are willing to stand by. Our benchmarks show that the 5900X’s slightly faster cores and the 10900K’s slightly lower memory latency balance out to yield similar performance. Whilst presenting their figures, AMD admitted that their 3000 series CPUs were far from “best for gaming” and conceded that the 10900K is approximately 19% faster than the 3900XT (our effective speed marks the gap at just 14%). Despite this clear performance deficiency, AMD supported 3000 series sales with an aggressive and successful marketing campaign to easily outsell Intel over the last 12 months. Given the real performance uplift observed in the 5000 series, and the absence of any meaningful marketing from Intel, we expect CPU sales to shift even further in AMD’s favour. Gamers that do not wish to pay “marketing fees” should investigate Intel’s $175 USD 11400F, the $660 USD savings would be far better spent on a higher tier GPU. [Nov '20CPUPro]
We calculate effective speed which measures real world performance for typical users. Effective speed is adjusted by current prices to yield a value for money rating. Our calculated values are checked against thousands of individual user ratings. The customizable table below combines these factors to bring you the definitive list of top CPUs. [CPUPro]
Welcome to our PC speed test tool. UserBenchmark will test your PC and compare the results to other users with the same components. You can quickly size up your PC, identify hardware problems and explore the best value for money upgrades.