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 16-core, 32-thread Ryzen 9 5950X is an impressive workhorse. It sits at the top of AMD’s latest Zen 3 based, 5000 series of CPUs and sends a clear message that AMD can beat Intel in terms of raw performance and core count. The 5950X has a boost clock speed of up to 4.9 GHz, a massive 72 MB cache and a TDP rating of 105W. Despite the “gaming” focus of AMD’s 5000 series launch marketing, the 5950X does not efficiently leverage all its 16 cores in gaming (as demonstrated by similar effective speed scores compared to the 12-core 5900X,8-core 5800X and 6-core 5600X.) 16 cores are only suitable for professional use cases that have CPU processing needs which cannot be more efficiently met by a GPU or other dedicated hardware. There is no Intel equivalent with this number of cores, and the 5950X’s uniqueness is reflected in its $799 USD price tag, 45% more expensive than the 5900X. Gamers will get far higher FPS per dollar by allocating a higher proportion of their budget towards a better GPU rather than blowing $799 USD on the 5950X. Professional users that plan to use 32 concurrent threads at 100% load will find value in the 5950X. On the other hand, workstation users that rarely exceed 20 concurrent threads at 100% should consider the 10850K for around half the money.[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.