35% off @ $259.99 Intel Core Ultra 7 Desktop Processor 265K - 20 cores (8 P-cores + 12 E-cores) up to 5.5 GHz

Afaik this one's good to go. They've rolled out a bunch of firmware/BIOS updates and increased performance on the whole 200-series by quite a bit over the last 3-6 months. For someone on a budget, you could do worse but I'd probably still recommend a 9800X3D and call it a day but that's just me.
 
This deal is back and includes Battlefield 6 - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DFK2MH2D/?tag=thefpsreview-20

My only problem with Arrow Lake is it being still born. Latest rumor is they didn't even improve the refresh for Copilot+ AI certification. There is uncertainty whether they will even bother with the refresh. I think it will go to OEM/ODM as they like the new shiny to advertise every year.

Better off with a 7700X for the same money, and be on a live platform, if you can't afford to pony up for a 3D. Or a 7600X for a $179.

https://www.techspot.com/review/3026-core-ultra-7-vs-ryzen-5-cpu-gpu-scaling/
 
I'm eyeing a 265KF combo at Microcenter.... $200 less than the 9800x3d bundle. Last several builds have been AM4. And while I have enjoyed the multiple CPU upgrades on AM4 boards..... maybe time to give Intel another shot and save 2 hundy in the process. I know the 9800x3d is the GOAT and all that, but I can't justify $600+ upgrade.. I really don't do all that much gaming. I doubt the X3D cache is going to make Civilization faster LOL.
 
Burticus said:
I'm eyeing a 265KF combo at Microcenter.... $200 less than the 9800x3d bundle. Last several builds have been AM4. And while I have enjoyed the multiple CPU upgrades on AM4 boards..... maybe time to give Intel another shot and save 2 hundy in the process. I know the 9800x3d is the GOAT and all that, but I can't justify $600+ upgrade.. I really don't do all that much gaming. I doubt the X3D cache is going to make Civilization faster LOL.
Click to expand...
Seeing as the American taxpayer just bought 433.3 million shares of Intel, DO IT! We could use the ROI 🤣
 
Anyone do recent PCIE 5 NVME speed testing on these. Still hitting the 12gb a second wall due to their chiplet design?
 
Burticus said:
I doubt the X3D cache is going to make Civilization faster LOL.
Click to expand...
I have been playing some Civ 6, for reasons that I cannot understand - and no, X3D cache does not make it go faster. It's not any faster than my 12700K was.

As far as I can tell, the horrific engine they use simply will not go faster. I've yet to try the abomination they released as Civ 7.
 
DAPUNISHER said:
Better off with a 7700X for the same money, and be on a live platform, if you can't afford to pony up for a 3D. Or a 7600X for a $179.
Click to expand...
Honestly, if you're going to game, it's X3D and then there's everything else from AMD and Nvidia. There's just no real comparison IMO, it's worth stretching for.
 
Grimlakin said:
Anyone do recent PCIE 5 NVME speed testing on these. Still hitting the 12gb a second wall due to their chiplet design?
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact yes....someone did, that person would be me.

On a MSI B860M Motherboard with a PCIe Gen5 Slot, running a 2TB Samsung 9100 Pro SSD & 285K

VS

Asus Strix Z890 Gaming Wifi Z890 + Same 2TB Samsung 9100 Pro SSD.
COre Ultra 9 285K Samsung 9100 2TB B860 vs Z890.jpg

And then some more thorough results with my other drives

All NVME Drives Passmark test.jpg

No matter what I did on the B860 board, couldn't get over 12GB's However on the Z890 Asus board zero issues

But in reality I wouldn't lose sleep over a slight decrease in maximum transfer rate that happens for very short periods of time.

I transfer large files quite frequently, so drives having a large SLC cache which allow for quicker sustained writes when writing large amounts (nearly full disk) quantities of data, doesn't even touch the speeds that Gen 5 drives advertise.

One of the reasons why I went with KC3000 Drives, just over 600gb of SLC cache, so 1.2Tb roughly when In Raid 0, they keep up quite nicely with my gen 5 drives when transferring data back and forth.
 
Last edited:
Your random 4k numbers are off a good bit if memory serves. I was sure I was pulling 2 gig. Thats about half.. may be the 2tb and 4tb drive differences though.
 
Memory serves? How helpful is that? Why not post some actual results so there can be some actual discussion.

www.thessdreview.com

Intel Core Ultra 200 Series Motherboards Are Not Achieving M.2 Slot Gen 5 14GB/s SSD Performance - The SSD Review

Truth be told, this is not the fault of motherboard manufacturers, nor is it that of SSD makers. It
www.thessdreview.com www.thessdreview.com

My 4K numbers don't seem off vs the 9100 pro used here

www.thessdreview.com

Intel Core Ultra 200 Series Motherboards Are Not Achieving M.2 Slot Gen 5 14GB/s SSD Performance - The SSD Review

Truth be told, this is not the fault of motherboard manufacturers, nor is it that of SSD makers. It
www.thessdreview.com www.thessdreview.com
 
Switch your test to the NVME test in crystal diskmark. I had the same issue with bad numbers. Here's the set I posted in the thread for it in Storage.

1758825507154.png

I want to call out this is a PCIE 5 x 4 drive. 9100 pro 4tb on a x870E motherboard in the slot direct to the CPU that is a Ryzen 9 9950x3d. Basically the stats in my sig.
 
Both of my tests were done with nvme settings, and it would appear my 4k results are much better than yours.
 
Tyler-98-W68 said:
Both of my tests were done with nvme settings, and it would appear my 4k results are much better than yours.
Click to expand...
The images you posted are not. the NVME settings do the random4k at 32 q depth on 16 threads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top