AMD’s latest Ryzen 7000 CPUs are finally here – and here at PremiumBuilds, we have spent some time with the new mid-range Ryzen 5 7600X – the next newest Ryzen 5 CPU offering from AMD based on their Zen 4 architecture.

If you’re looking to build a system with the Ryzen 5 7600X, or any new Ryzen 7000 CPU for that matter, you’re going to need to heavily upgrade or spend a pretty penny on a new system as these new CPUs are are based on their AM5 platform. This new platform brings a plethora of new trick features – including DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 support.

In this guide, we’re going to take you through some of the best motherboards for the Ryzen 5 7600X – including options for the best overall, budget, mid-range, high-end and overclocking motherboards to pair with the Ryzen 5 7600X.

In addition, we’ll take you through some of the key factors and considerations to take in mind when picking a motherboard for the Ryzen 5 7600X – so if your specific requirements are a little bit more bespoke, you’ll be able to do the research and knowledge to find the perfect motherboard for your new Ryzen 5 7600X system.

With that said, here are the best motherboards for AMD’s Ryzen 5 7600X for 2023.

Best Motherboards for Ryzen 5 7600X – Our Recommendations

1. Best Overall Motherboard for Ryzen 5 7600X – Asus Prime X670-Pro WiFi

Starting with our overall favorite motherboard to pair with the 7600X comes from Asus, with their Prime X670-Pro WiFi. Being a X670 chipset, this motherboard comes in the lower price point than some of its MSI rivals (>$1000!) but comes with plenty of features that will handle everything the Ryzen 5 7600X will throw at it. With a 14+2 Phase 70A VRM with an impressive heatsink for thermal dissipation, this motherboard is perfect for overclocking the Ryzen 5 7600X. Other features include an extensive I/O with USB 3.2 Gen2x2 Type-C support, WiFi 6E, 4 DIMM slots as well as 6 SATA slots. This is a great AM5 motherboard that doesn’t break the bank but offers plenty of performance and connectivity for any Ryzen 5 7600X system.

2. Best Budget Motherboard for Ryzen 5 7600X – ASRock B650M PG Riptide

This is the cheapest motherboard you can use to build a Ryzen 5 7600X system, and boy does it perform for the money. This newest B650 chipset motherboard packs a punch in its micro-ATX form factor and has an impressive 12+2+1 phase VRM, with support up to 6200MHz DDR5, dual PCIe 4.0 support. We’re not happy about the presence of the ALC897 codec, but we think this is outweighed by the solid VRM performance and features making this great for any budget Ryzen 5 7600X system.

3. Best Mid-Range Motherboard for Ryzen 5 7600X – MSI B650 Tomahawk WiFi

If you’re looking for a mid-range motherboard to pair with the Ryzen 5 7600X, the MSI B650 Tomahawk WiFi is the best current option to go for from the AM5 offerings. With most B650 motherboards, you’re really able to build an overkill system but its easy to overspend with these new AM5 motherboards with the price nudging up with each generation. With the B650 Tomahawk WiFi – you get a solid range of features, a overkill 14+2+1 phase VRM design with a oversized VRM heatsink to match. The only downside is that this motherboard doesn’t have support for M2 Gen5 support – so if you’re looking to build a system with this, look for another alternative!

4. Best High-End Motherboard for Ryzen 5 7600X – Asus ROG Strix X670E-E Gaming

When building a high-end system for the Ryzen 5 7600X – we have strong recommendations for pairing this CPU with the Asus ROG Strix X670E-E Gaming. This motherboard is perfect for overclocking with its unmatched 18+2 VRM design with 110A power stages and decent capacitors – kept cool with 2 oversized VRM heatsinks and dissipation features. With support up to PCIe Gen 5 on 2 slots and 3 M2 Gen5 – this motherboard for the 7600X is not short of storage performance. 13 rear ports on the I/O and a S1220A codec and ALC4080 codec help round off this motherboard to be one of the best all-round and high-end picks when picking a high-end motherboard for the Ryzen 5 7600X

5. Best ITX Motherboard for Ryzen 5 7600X – Asus ROG B650E-I Gaming WiFi

If you’re lucky to get your hands on one of these, then we recommend building a ITX 7600X system with the Asus B650-I Gaming WiFi. Whilst the ASRock ITX counterpart has a better VRM design compared to the Asus’ 10-stage 70A VRM, this motherboard is packed with great rear I/O connectivity, DDR5 support up to 6400 MT/s+ and overall feature set is why it gets our pick for the best ITX motherboard for the Ryzen 5 7600X

The post 5 Best Motherboards for the Ryzen 5 7600X appeared first on PremiumBuilds.

Each component in a PC build needs to run harmoniously with each other internal piece, creating a chain of synchronicity that results in the pleasure, and utility, we receive from the PC’s performance. This performance allows us to play games at high framerates, edit photos and videos efficiently, or just sit back and watch a film on a high-resolution monitor. To best achieve this ideal state, each hardware component must be carefully chosen, in order to assure that it is connected to the most optimal pairings. 

The very first link that should be chosen, when it comes to building a PC, is the CPU; as this is the most crucial part of any setup. If you are one of the many that have opted for a Zen 2, or Zen 3, AMD Ryzen processor, then there are some key suggestions that can make a considerable difference in performance – especially when it come to the Random Access Memory that will feed the CPU with the necessary temporary memory it needs to function.

In this article, we will break down each aspect associated with these memory units, and particularly the features that tie into the architecture of a Ryzen processor. Then, we will provide suggestions for the best metrics to look for when making a purchase, as well as a couple of examples of memory kit models that contain all the best qualities needed to synchronize with a Zen 2 or Zen 3 CPU.

You may also like:

• Ryzen RAM Speed Benchmark Analysis: What is the Best RAM for Ryzen?
• Zen 3 RAM Speeds: An Analysis of the Best RAM for Zen 3

Best RAM Speeds for Ryzen

The speed of a memory unit is dependent on two factors: the clock frequency and the CAS (Column Address Strobe) latency. 

The former metric refers to the number of cycles that the memory can perform per second,  measured in MHz. Now, it is better to have the potential for a larger amount of cycles, but different types of RAM can access data from a column address in a different amount of these cycles. The less cycles needed to access this information the better, and these cycles are measured as CAS Latency (CL). 

The overall speed of a RAM unit is dependent on both of these metrics, and can be calculated by taking the CAS latency and multiplying it by the reciprocal of half of the clock frequency (in cycles). For example, a memory kit with a frequency of 3,200 MHz and a CAS of 14 cycles will have an absolute latency of:

14/(3,200,000,000/2) = 8.75 nanoseconds.

 That being said, the absolute latency may not always be the determining factor when it comes to a memory’s performance. CPUs are built in a fashion to where they pair better with certain speeds that synchronize with their own internal frequencies. When it comes to Ryzen CPUs, the determining factor is what AMD calls the Infinity Fabric – or FCLK/Fclock. For Zen 2 and Zen 3 CPUs – and the internal frequency of the Infinity Fabric is 1,800 MHz. Double this data rate (3,600 MHz) is what will optimize the synchronicity between the memory and the Infinity Fabric. 

This FCLK, or internal latency, can also be tweaked, and overclocked to 1,900 – or even 2,000 – MHz, but these frequencies may be difficult to maintain in terms of stability. So, if FCLK is left to its default 1,800 MHz, a RAM with a frequency of 3,600 MHz will be optimal – which should come with a CAS latency cap of 16 cycles. The absolute latency of this kit is 8.88 nanoseconds, but benchmarks prove that this speed actually does outperform the 3,200 MHz CL 14 kit, which has a lesser absolute latency, due to the better match it makes with the double data rate of the internal frequency of Ryzen CPUs.

Of course, the less the latency the better, but lower latency also drives the price up dramatically, and the difference in performance (at least for common applications like gaming) will be all but negligible. If you wish to overclock the FCLK, then a 3,800 MHz speed would be best (FCLK at 1,900 MHz) as overclocking further would be difficult to achieve consistently.  

Best RAM Die for Ryzen

Typically speaking, the best die for Ryzen CPUs is Samsung’s B-Die, but this will only matter if you plan on overclocking your RAM, and even then it is somewhat debatable how much it ultimately affects the performance of the memory’s overclocking potential. Other dies – like CJR’s C-Die or Micron’s E-Die – can also perform decently, but Samsung’s B-Die allows for clock speeds and latency combinations that are optimal for Ryzen CPUs.

If you’d like to know whether or not a particular RAM model has Samsung’s B-Die, and the manufacturer has not specified the die that they use on their product’s sales page, then here is a handy searching tool that allows you to filter different models and find the best choice for your needs.

Single Channel vs Dual Channel for Ryzen

Most RAM kits will come in two or more ranks, splitting the total storage accordingly. Situating the RAM in this manner creates a multi-channel memory platform. This effectively doubles the traces running on the memory bus, and doubles the width of the data channel. 

If you worry about whether or not having a single-rank RAM kit will negatively affect the performance of your setup, benchmarks show us that for the vast majority of users the differences between single and dual channel memory, in real world applications, is actually almost negligible. Where the difference in configuration does become substantial, is with simulations or compilations, as the dual channel memory displayed a performance boost that was just shy of 17%. But for applications like gaming, browsing, or general productivity – which the Ryzen CPUs are mostly geared towards – the advantage is minuscule. The deciding factor for choosing a single channel or dual channel setup should ultimately be the price associated with the two options. Also, if you are building a PC around an mITX motherboard (which only has two memory slots), you don’t need to worry about separating your initial RAM storage into two ranks. You can buy one rank, with the amount of storage you currently need, and save the second slot for a future upgrade without having to worry about impacting your memory’s performance.

Best RAM Storage Amount for Ryzen

If you’re wondering how much RAM you should purchase, the answer will depend on your usage. There is no optimal RAM storage amount for Ryzen CPUs, but there are certain guidelines you can follow to assure that your PC has enough RAM to function properly – without overdoing it. 

If you use your PC for general browsing, light office use, or competitive multiplayer games (titles of which are far less hardware demanding than triple-A releases), then 8 to 16 GB of RAM will suffice. Of course, the more RAM the better, but if you are on a limited budget, 8 GB of RAM can be a decent starting point of which you can also later upgrade depending on your needs and resources. Next, if you enjoy triple-A gaming, and want to get the most out of your PC, 32 GB of RAM would be best, as it allows for plenty of storage to be used between both the high-end gaming titles, as well as any background applications and web browsers that may be working simultaneously – and can occupy a considerable amount of RAM. Finally, if you plan on building a PC for content creation, then a minimum storage amount should be 32 GB; if you wish to avoid freezing and stuttering while editing.

So, what is the most optimal Zen 2, or Zen 3, Ryzen memory kit?

For a typical gaming build, geared towards those that care little about going through the hassle of overclocking their RAM and FCLK, the answer would be: a 16 to 32 GB kit, in two to four ranks,  with a speed of 3,600 MHz CL 16, and a Samsung B-Die. With this kit, you can have dual channel memory, with a clock frequency that has double the data rate of the Infinity Fabric, and the best performing die and a sufficient amount of memory storage.

As a general guideline, the above metrics stand true for most builds, with certain tweaks being made to accommodate different usages. If you don’t mind paying a bit extra, you can purchase a RAM with a 3,600 MHz CL 14 or CL 15 latency, allowing you to subsequently overclock the memory to 3,800 or 4,000 MHz, when boosting FCLK to 1,900 or 2,000 MHz respectively. Also, the amount of storage should be purchased solely according to your needs. Whether or not you purchase RAM in single, or multiple ranks will make little difference, so you can always buy the amount of memory you currently need, and then upgrade as your storage needs increase.

Finally, let’s see what RAM models you can but that include all the aforementioned specifications.  

If you want some RGB flare for your build, you can always go for the G.Skill Trident Z 3,600 MHz CL 16 kit. For those that prefer performance over looks, T-Force’s Dark Pro 3,600 MHz CL 16 RAM is an excellent choice, as it has an excellent five-layer heatsink to keep thermals in check, and a JEDEC RC 2.0 custom circuit for better signal transmission. 

The post What is Ryzen Optimized RAM? Maximize Your Ryzen Build Performance appeared first on PremiumBuilds.

In order to compete with AMD’s complete domination of the CPU market after the release of their Zen 3 Ryzen 5000 CPUs, Intel has launched their 11^th generation Rocket Lake processors. These models have respectable single core performance, and are excellent choices for gaming builds. Another inherent advantage of these CPUs is their availability, as AMD’s Zen 3 processors can seldomly be found at their initial MSRP.

Now, if you have chosen to go the Intel route for your next CPU, you are going to want to find the best motherboard to house this processor. Choosing a motherboard can be tricky, as there are so many models to choose from, and the differences between them can be hard to differentiate. Currently, Intel has three different types of motherboards for their 10^th and 11^th generation CPUs (LGA 1200 chipset): The B560, the H570, and the Z590.

The main differences between the three motherboards are: their number and configuration of PCIe lanes, their connectivity, and their support for CPU overclocking. The B560, being the entry-level option, has the least amount of PCIe & DMI lanes, the least amount of USB slots, and no raid configuration support. However, it is the least expensive of all three options, so, if these shortcoming seem unimportant to you, then this would be the best of the three motherboards to choose from.

The H570, being the mid-level option of the two, does have a bit more connectivity then the B560 –  with x8 DMI lanes, 20 PCIe lanes, and 2 additional USB 3.2 slots – but the key missing feature is its lack of CPU overclocking support.

The premium model of the three is the Z590, which not only has the best connectivity, but it also is the only option that allows for CPU overclocking. This is particularly important for those looking to purchase Intel i7 or i9 Rocket Lake CPUs, which are built with premium overclocking technology like Intel’s Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 Frequency and Intel Thermal Velocity Boost Frequency. 

Conclusion

The best way to choose which motherboard to purchase, in order to house your new Intel Rocket Lake CPU, is to check their connectivity and see which best fills your needs. If you care little about overclocking your CPU, then both B560 and H570 motherboard models have solid options for your choosing. If you don’t need the extra connectivity, the B560 is the way to go, as it is the cheapest of the three, yet offers enough utility to be a respectable option. Given also that RAM overclocking is now possible for any LGA 1200 motherboard model, both the B560 and H570 can be valuable for their price.

If CPU overclocking potential is important for you, then, unfortunately, you only have one option to choose from: the Z590. This motherboard may come at a relatively high price, but the good news is you will have excellent connectivity, and added features that are usually reserved for premium motherboards: like a high-end audio chipset and powerful VRM & cooling solutions.

The post B560 vs H570 vs Z590 Motherboard Comparison: Which is Best for Rocket Lake CPUs? appeared first on PremiumBuilds.

Choosing a motherboard is not an easy task. There are many factors to consider, and many aspects that need to be analyzed. Especially new PC builders can find that choosing a proper motherboard to be a daunting task, as these components are associated with plenty of technical terminology, and excessively over-the-top marketing, overloaded with information that is many times just fluff.

The most key aspects to look for in a motherboard are:

1. The VRM and cooling solutions.
2. The memory support and number of slots.
3. The number of storage slots and PCIe lanes.
4. The included audio chipset.
5. The overall connectivity – be it USB, fan headers, or networking.
6. The manufacturer’s BIOS.
7. Their external appearance.
8. And, most importantly, their form factor.

The form factor of the motherboard will not only determine the overall size of your PC, but it will also determine everything from: overclocking and upgrade potential, to RAM & ROM storage size, and even the cooling potential of your build. If you are currently debating what form factor to choose, this article will provide you with the four main questions you must ask yourself in order to reach a decision on which form factor best fits your style and preferences.

What is your budget?

The first question, of course, is also the most predictable. The first thing you need to know before planning any new build is your budget – and there are some hidden costs associated with different motherboard form-factors. 

ATX motherboards offer the best connectivity out of all three types, but they are typically more expensive than their smaller counterparts and they require larger cases to accommodate them, which also drives up the price. 

Mini-ITX motherboards may cost less, but because they lack connectivity – like DDR4 RAM slots, M.2 SSD slots, and PCIe lanes – they will require a more substantial initial investment. For example, a mITX motherboard will typically have just two DDR4 Slots, whereas ATX motherboards will have four. That means that if you need 32 GB of RAM, you will also need to purchase them in two ranks (instead of four), since the ability to upgrade the RAM storage size will not be available. This means that it may be wise to purchase more RAM than is necessary at the time of their purchase. Because of the smaller size of mITX compatible cases, you may also need a SFX form factor power supply – which are typically more expensive than larger ATX PSUs – and an SFX compatible CPU cooler; together with additional fans – or liquid cooling – to keep the internal components at proper temperatures, since smaller cases tend to run hotter.

Finally, micro-ATX motherboards will typically be cheaper than the other two options, but they feature four RAM slots & plenty of connectivity; and they can also be placed in different cases ranging from micro to midi towers (or even mini-towers in some cases). These motherboards are  cheaper in price, so they do make for more cost efficient options. The downside is that they are  lower end motherboard models, so they will have fewer PCIe slots, weaker VRM & cooling solutions, lower-end audio chipsets, and may lack WiFi networking.

Do you want your PC to be mobile or stationary?

So, ultimately, mITX motherboards are the more expensive options, when compared to either micro-ATX or ATX form-factors, but they have a smaller footprint, and therefore more portability. If, for example, you have an office separate from your home, and want to be able to transfer your PC between these two locations, a small form factor (SFF) case can easily be relocated. Of course, there are also mini-towers (and even micro-towers) that can easily be moved, since options do exist that even include a handle for easier transfer. ATX cases are much more difficult to carry, as they are considerably larger and heavier than the aforementioned form factors; but their upsides lie in their better connectivity and wider range of compatibility. 

If your case will be stationary,  then an ATX motherboard and case is almost a no-brainer. There are few reasons to purchase a smaller case if you do not have the intent of it being mobile
: which would be the budget, or the looks – and this leads to the next question:

Will your PC be flashy, or will it be quiet?

Preferences in appearance are always in the eye of the beholder, so some will want to make something like a large build with a tempered glass side panel and plenty of RGB lighting, while others may find a smaller, sleeker, and perhaps monochrome case to be more to their liking. These preferences do play a role in the choice of a motherboard, due to budget considerations, the overall size of the case, and the lighting that the motherboard itself can support. 

If you’re looking to add as much pizzazz as you can get – and don’t mind sacrificing a bit of the motherboard’s functionality, or the ability to properly overclock your CPU – then a micro-ATX  build will give you a bit more budget leeway and space to plan out the RGB effects. 

ATX motherboards may cost a bit more, but they will provide additional RGB lighting (on the motherboard itself) and room between hardware components that can allow for different setups for liquid cooling. 

Last but not least, we have the most expensive of the three options, but arguably the most stylish: the mITX motherboards and their accompanying SFF cases. These cases can cost more than the motherboard itself, and if you want yours to allow for both style and functionality – like perhaps a Thor Mjolnir or a Sliger SM550 – then you will be paying upwards of two-to-three hundred dollars for the case alone. That being said, having both a small footprint and a sleek design can make for an excellent combination.

Now, if you see a PC as a practical piece of machinery, rather than a centerpiece for your desk, then chances are that you will also prefer to have a quiet build, rather than a flashy one. Silent builds also require specialized hardware components, including the case they will be placed in. Midi-towers will generally have less noise emissions, due to the fact that they have more sound dampening materials (larger panels), more ventilation, more space between components, and more sufficient cooling. Smaller cases will ultimately be noisier, due to the factors above, but there are exceptions to the rule: like Fractal Design’s Define Nano S: an ITX case (that only takes mITX motherboards) which is surrounded by sound dampening panels and allows for a 160mm CPU cooler & up to six case-fans (4x 140mm, 2x 120 mm).

Are you planning on overclocking?

If you plan on overclocking your CPU regularly, certain motherboards will definitely be better than others, due to their VRM and cooling solutions. The VRM is a buck converter than throttles +5 / +12 V potential to the lower values needed by the CPU. A poor VRM solution may result in insufficient voltage supplied to the processor, unwanted shutdowns, and instability. Additionally, if the MOSFETs, chokes, and capacitors are not heatsinked, the subsequent overheating can cause these components to deteriorate and have shorter lifespans. 

If you want to avoid bottlenecking your CPU’s overclocking capabilities, you will want a high end VRM solution, with all the components being heatsinked, and perhaps even a heatpipe or PCH fan for additional cooling. The motherboards that are most-guilty of not heatsinking their VRM components are the micro-ATX variants, which generally should be ignored if you plan on overclocking your CPU in the future. ATX and mITX motherboards can have excellent cooling, depending, of course, on their price and model.CONCLUSION

To sum things up, if you want a motherboard for a stationary PC with a good VRM solution, that can become either stylish or silent depending on your preference – and that comes at a decent overall price – then ATX motherboards will be best for your needs. You will have an easier time setting it up, extra space for better connectivity, and far more motherboard models to choose from.

On the other hand, if you are looking for a motherboard – and overall PC build – on a budget, and don’t mind missing out on overclocking potential or connectivity, a micro-ATX build is the way to go. This will allow you for more leeway to make your PC either extra stylish, or silent, and will give you a wider range of compatible cases to consider.

Finally, if you want a premium PC build – and don’t mind spending a bit more in order to attain one – then a mITX build can be incredibly powerful, sleek, and convenient. If these motherboards are to be placed in a SFF case, then scrupulous planning must be made to ensure all components fit, and that you have sufficient memory, storage, and cooling. They can offer high-end overclocking potential, fit full-sized GPUs, and they can be transferred from one area to another on a whim. They  do have limited connectivity and may be a bit noisy, depending on the case, but if you see this as a small price to pay for what they offer, than an ITX motherboard is definitely an excellent option to consider.

The post Which Motherboard Size Should You Choose? ATX vs Micro-ATX vs Mini-ITX appeared first on PremiumBuilds.

Despite the release of new-generation GPUs – from both AMD and Nvidia – that are capable of processing 1440p and 4K resolutions at high refresh rates, Full HD 1080p monitors are still as popular as ever, especially for competitive gamers. And though having a higher resolution does add a more pleasant visual elements to triple-A gaming, browsing, and watching movies, aesthetics always take the back seat when it comes competitive online multiplayer titles, where practicality is far more important. Maintaining high refresh rates together with low input lag is paramount in ensuring that one’s chances to victory or not hindered by any external (to the game) factors.

This is also why TN monitors were almost exclusively used by competitive gamers and tournament organizers alike, as these panels are known to display the least amount of input lag, and have some of the fastest response times when compared to their early IPS or VA counterparts. However, as monitor technology has advanced, these shortcomings have been expiated to a considerable degree with the release of fast IPS, SS IPS, and SVA panels. 

One such example of the upgrade from TN to IPS can be found in Dell’s Alienware AW2518HF, and its successor: the AW2521HF. But, the question is, does this new monitor display the same excellent gaming qualities found in its predecessor, or is it just an attempt to capitalize on this new shift to more modern – and typically more expensive – IPS panels? Should TN monitors be sought after no matter what their current price, or are they unworthy of the adulation they receive? Let’s compare these two Alienware variants in-depth, in order to determine what type of upgrade Dell has provided with this new monitor, and, in turn, reach a verdict on which model is better worth the investment for its intended market: competitive gamers.

Specifications

Appearance – TIE

Staying true to the external design one can expect from Alienware monitors, both these variants have the sleek, modern, and simplistic shape that the brand is known for. The slightly older model, the AW2518HF, is a somewhat bulkier than the AW2521HF, but equally stylish nonetheless. It has a tripod stand, an all gray matte anti-glare coating, and three LED-illuminated bars, as well as an Alienware logo, on the top-right corner of the backside of the screen; which can be customized to your liking via the Dell’s AlienFX software. Not to be outdone by its predecessor, the AW2521HF also has an RGB lighting zone, in the form of an accent on the backside of the bi-pod stand, as well as the standard Alienware logo on the same top-right corner.

The borders on both these monitors are rather thin, at 5 mm for the AW2518HF and 7 mm for the AW2521HF, making them excellent options for multi-monitor setups. Of course, it must be mentioned that their respective stands are quite thick, so they do require a decent amount of desk space.

All in all, both monitors look great and can be used in any setting – whether it be a bedroom or an office.

Resolution & Refresh Rate – TIE

Since both AW25HF options have identical resolutions (1920 x 1080) and refresh rates (240 Hz), neither model holds an advantage in this category. However, it must be mentioned that in order to run games at such high framerates – even at a FHD resolution – one will need some of the best PC hardware the market has to offer. When tested by Techspot, the highest performing 1080p GPU was found to be AMD’s $999 Radeon RX 6900 XT, which averaged 207 FPS for 18 different titles. Even Nvidia’s popular high mid-end option, the GeForce RTX 3080, was only able to average 186 FPS in these benchmarks. Of course, these metrics represent an average, so there will be games that reach well above the 240 FPS mark; though these will be less-demanding competitive online multiplayer titles, rather than single player triple-A games.  

Display – Dell Alienware AW2521HF

One of the specifications where the IPS panel outshines most of its competition – including that of its TN counterpart – are its viewing angles. TN panels are mostly meant to be viewed from the front, and the Dell AW2518HF is no exception. It has poor vertical – and even horizontal – viewing angles, which is typical for its panel type. On the other hand, the Dell AW2521HF, with its IPS panel, only begins to display a color washout at a 45 degree horizontal angle (either left or right), while colors  begin to shift at the 57 to 58 degree mark. Similarly, black level raises are noticed at a high, 70 degree angle from either direction. Its vertical viewing angle is not as impressive, as color washout begins within a 31 degree angle (from above or below), and color shift begins from 39 to 42 degrees (black level raise is identical for both vertical and horizontal angles). Gamma shift from above and below begins at 32 degrees, while from the left and right directions it is noticeable at 58 and 57 degrees respectively.

Neither of these Alienware models have screen curvature, but the AW2518HF is not ideal for sharing, which is an issue that the AW2521HF ignores completely.

Contrast & Brightness – TIE

We can’t expect much from either IPS or TN panels when it comes to contrast ratios, and neither of these competing options is an exception to the norm. The Dell AW2518HF was measured to have a static contrast ratio of 948,5 to one by Tom’s Hardware, while Rtings.com measured the AW2521HF to have a native contrast of 1,198 to one. Of course, a 20% contrast ratio may seem like a substantial upgrade, but in reality these metrics vary between units, and are within the same 1,000 to one range of their advertised specifications. A mediocre static contrast ratio means black colors may look more like gray, especially in darker environments; which is something to be expected when purchasing either of these monitors.

Also of equal caliber are the peak brightness levels that these Alienware variants are capable of. Though neither of the two support HDR, both exhibit an impressively high SDR peak brightness level that exceed 400 nits. According to Tom’s Hardware the AW2518HF was able to reach a peak brightness level of 418.6 cd/m², while according to Rtings.com the AW2521HF exhibited an SDR Real Scene peak brightness level of 406 cd/m².

Color Range – Dell AW2521HF

Another inherent advantage of IPS monitors is their superior color saturation and larger color gamut, which becomes apparent when they are compared to TN panels. This commonality proves to be true in this comparison as well, as we see the Dell AW2521HF outperform the AW2518HF in the Adobe RGB 1998 color gamut by a significant margin. That being said, the latter model does hold its own in regard to the sRGB color space, with Tom’s Hardware claiming it was able to reproduce 99.78% of the sRGB color spectrum, but only 68.42% of the Adobe RGB color space. On the other hand, when measuring the Dell AW2521HF, Rtings.com found it to be able to reproduce 97.7% of the sRGB xy color space (on CIE 1931 xy), and 75.21% of the Adobe RGB xy color spectrum (80.4% in lCtCp). Though its advantage is not of the magnitude one would expect for the typical panel properties, it still does give itself the edge over the Dell AW2518HF.

Response Time & Input Lag – TIE 

Where the TN panel shines, is its low response times and input lag. However, in this case (surprisingly enough), the IPS panel of the AW2521HF actually performs on an almost equal level to the TN panel of the AW2518HF. 

Firstly, for full black to white transition times, it took the AW2518HF just 6 ms to respond, and not far behind was the AW2521HF which took 6.4 ms at its default overdrive setting (Fast). These measurements are taken using the monitors’ native refresh rate, since at 60 Hz the response times (and input lag) do increase. To be more specific for the AW2521HF, the total response times increases to 10.4 ms – which is still an excellent result.

When responding to an input, the AW2518HF was measured (by Tom’s Hardware) to have an absolute (end-to-end) input lag of just 19 ms, which is incredibly low. Similarly low were the tests carried out for the AW2521HF (by Rtings.com) that was found to have 2.7 ms of input lag (not absolute) at its native resolution and refresh rate, increasing to 3.1 ms with VRR enabled, 9.7 ms at 60 Hz, and 12.7 ms at 60 Hz with VRR enabled. 

Whether it be for competitive gaming on an enthusiast, or professional level, these monitors are both suitable for even the highest competitive standards.

Ergonomics & Power Consumption – TIE

Another nearly identical aspect of these two monitors is their ergonomic versatility. They both have a removable stand and can be mounted via a standard VESA mounting interface of 100 x 100 mm, though, if the monitors are left on their stand, they can have their height adjusted by up to 130 mm, they can pivot (clockwise and counterclockwise) by 90 degrees, they can swivel (left and right) by 20 degrees, and they can tilt forwards by 5 degrees and backwards by 25 degrees (AW2518HF) or 21 degrees (AW2521HF).

Also similar are their power demands, with the AW2518HF consuming 26 W on average (73 W maximum), while the AW2521HF fares slightly better at a 24 W average power consumption (72 W maximum); meaning an estimated 55.52 kWh of annual energy expenditure.

Connectivity & Features – TIE

Other than display connectivity, modern gaming monitors are also equipped with USB ports, used for plugging peripherals directly to the screen, thus saving ports from the PC and relieving some of the resulting cable clutter. In this regard, both monitors fare equally well, as both include a total of five USB 3.0 ports: four downstream and one upstream. Display and audio connectivity are also the same for these two variants, as they carry two HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.2 sockets, as well as one 3.5 mm audio in and one 3.5 mm audio out jacks.

In terms of features, we have VRR, in the form of native AMD FreeSync support and Nvidia G-Sync certified compatibility, an on-screen timer, and fps counter, and display alignment (which helps when setting up a multi-monitor setup) for both options.

Verdict

After a thorough analysis of the two Alienware monitors in all aspects relating to a monitor’s performance, we see that they are surprisingly similar – despite the relative upgrade from a TN to an IPS panel. These upgrades for the Dell AW2521HF include having better viewing angles, and a slightly larger (and more accurate) color volume. Other than that, they perform on an almost equal level. In other words, the IPS panel seems to attain all the same positive qualities of its TN counterpart – like quick response times and low input lag – while adding the aforementioned advantages.   

Of course, one can argue that  these advantages are very minor for what should be an upgraded model, but given that the Dell AW2521HF launched with a 20% lower suggested retail price than the Dell AW2518HF, these upgrades are rather nice.

But, is there any reason to purchase the Dell AW2518HF at its current price, given that it costs $230 (67%) more than the DellAW2521HF? Surely not for any practical reasons, but a collector might want to attain what is possibly one of the best TN monitors to have ever been released, now that TN panels are slowly becoming obsolete.

The post Dell Alienware AW2518HF vs AW2521HF: What Are The Differences? appeared first on PremiumBuilds.

While PCIe 4.0 compatible SSDs are not just gaining steam, but are even dropping in price, Intel – and now Samsung – have recently announced the release of a brand-new NVMe SSD… with a PCIe 3.0 bus type. 

Of course, PCIe Gen 3 SSDs are still quite popular, especially given the recent price drops that have put them within an almost identical cost-range to their SATA III SSD equivalents. Given that PCIe 4.0 storage drives still need a couple of years to reach a cost that is comparable to today’s PCIe 3.0 storage drives, there are many potential customers that hard drive manufacturers can attract with this previous generation PCI Express lane technology.

The new Samsung SSD model that just released is the Samsung 980. This SSD is absent of any DRAM, while it makes use of the new Samsung in-house Pablo controller, a higher-end 128-layer 3D TLC NAND flash type, and Samsung’s new and improved Intelligent TurboWrite 2.0: a feature that enhances sustained transfer speed performance by using a larger, dynamic, SLC (Single-Level Cell) buffer storage within the SSDs architecture.

So how does the Samsung 980 compare with Samsung’s own higher-end PCIe 4.0 compatible SSD, the Samsung 980 Pro? Is the latter model worth the extra investment? Let’s check their specifications and real-world benchmarks and see whether or not this newly released hard drive is a worthy purchase.

Specifications

Model	Samsung 980 Pro	Samsung 980
Design
Storage Sizes	250 GB, 500 GB, 1 TB, 2 TB	250 GB, 500 GB, 1 TB
Sequential Read	6,400 MB/s, 6,900 MB/s, 7,000 MB/s, 7,000 MB/s	2,900 MB/s, 3,100 MB/s, 3,500 MB/s,
Sequential Write	2,700 MB/s, 5,000 MB/s, 5,000 MB/s, 5,100 MB/s	1,300 MB/s, 2,600 MB/s, 3,000 MB/s
4KB Random Read	500,000 IOPS, 800,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS	230,000 IOPS, 400,000 IOPS, 500,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write	600,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS	320,000 IOPS, 470,000 IOPS, 480,000 IOPS
Bus Type	PCIe 4.0 x4 NVMe 1.3c	PCIe 4.0 x4 NVMe 1.4
Controller	Samsung Elpis	Samsung Pablo
NAND Type	Samsung 128L 3D TLC	Samsung 128L 3D TLC
TBW	150 TBW, 300 TBW, 600 TBW, 1200 TBW	150 TBW, 300 TBW, 600 TBW
Warranty	5 years	5 years
MSRP	$90, $150, $230, $430	$50, $70, $130
Availability	Amazon.com	Amazon.com

The Samsung 980 Pro includes a 2 TB storage size, missing from the 980, and its sequential read speeds are at least double that of its PCIe Gen 3 cousin. Sequential write speeds are also faster, with the difference ranging from 66% to 107%, depending on the storage size. Its 4K random read and write speeds also seem to prove PCIe 4.0’s promise of double throughput, surpassing the 980’s advertised metrics by up to 118%.

The V-NAND flash type and endurance levels are identical for both models, and though the 150 to 600 Terabytes Written (TBW) values are more than enough for an SSD marketed for everyday PC builds and gamers, these metrics may be insufficient for higher-end workstation setups that transfer large amounts of files on a daily basis – and this is the key demographic of the more expensive Samsung 980 Pro model. Both 980 and 980 Pro are backed by Samsung’s 5-year warranty.

In terms of price, we see that the Samsung 980 Pro is already experiencing price cuts ranging from 12% to 20% (at its 500 GB, and above, storage sizes) – and the more the PCIe Gen 4 SSDs are discounted, the more their PCIe Gen 3 equivalents will also have to have their prices reduced. Currently, the 1 TB Samsung 980 Pro model costs $130, meaning that the Samsung 980 Pro is 54% more expensive. Is the 980 Pro worth this extra cost? Let’s check the benchmarks and find out.

Benchmarks

Testing does prove that the peak sequential read and write speeds of the 980 Pro can double the speeds of even some of the best PCIe Gen 3 compatible SSDs the market has to offer, including the Samsung 980. Of course, when it comes to real world applications, the differences are not as impressive, though the Samsung 980 Pro still outperforms the 980 by upwards of 46% to 57%.

Peak 4K random read and write speeds is where the 980 Pro disappoints, only reaching 50% to 60% of its promised advertised specifications. It is here that it only leads the Samsung 980 by 21% and 25% respectively. Also, when it comes to gaming applications, the difference in loading times is only 3%; which is to be expected to some degree, as even SATA III SSDs have been show to rival, or even surpass, the speeds of NVMe storage drives in this matter.

When it comes to trace-based benchmark applications, like PCMark 10, the Samsung 980 Pro proves to be the more responsive hard drive, but not by a significant margin. The PCMark10 Quick System score, which is meant to simulate more common, less hardware-intensive, applications, and the Full System score, which is used to rate performance for higher-end usage, show the Samsung 980 Pro outscoring the 980 by 18% for the former, but only by 9% for the latter.

One last thing to mention is that the Samsung 980 Pro consumes only 7% more energy than the 980, and, considering that the former outperforms the latter by 20% to 50% in transfer speeds, we can say confidently say that the Samsung 980 Pro is far more power efficient than the 980.

Verdict

For the vast majority of users – including those looking for an SSD for browsing, general productivity, content creation, or gaming – the Samsung 980 Pro still does not justify its price versus other, cheaper, PCIe 3.0 bus-type storage drives. The Samsung 980, on the other hand, provides great overall value, as it has respectable transfer speeds and it proves to be very responsive for all types of applications. 

Of course, both these Samsung models do have some serious competition for their respective targeted audience, like the Sabrent Rocket or the ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro for the Samsung 980, and the Western Digital Black SN850 or the Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus for the Samsung 980 Pro, but they are still both respectable options that come with the quality and reliability that Samsung is known for when it comes to their SSD storage options.

The post Samsung 980 vs 980 Pro: What Are The Differences? appeared first on PremiumBuilds.