PC of the month (July 2024)

In addition to the abnormal heat, the summer equator also brought much more aggressive power outage algorithms. In such conditions, the energy efficiency of systems for different usage patterns is of high priority. In conditions of prolonged power shortages, laptops with good battery life will be the best option for work tasks. As for entertainment systems, some people will choose a gaming laptop, and in this case we will direct you to the relevant material about such models, while others will still prefer desktop solutions. As part of the classicPC of the Month, we're going to take a look at desktop PC configurations, focusing on the power consumption of key components. The most energy-efficient solutions will allow you to work longer from an existing charging station, but let's try to find a balance here so as not to significantly lose in system performance.

Basic gaming PC of the month ($600-750)

Gaming monitor for the "Basic Gaming PC" from our partner MSI

The MSI G255F is powered by a high-speed IPS panel with a 1920×1080 resolution and a response time of just 1ms to deliver a superior gaming experience for entry-level systems. The 24.5-inch monitor has a 180Hz refresh rate, slim bezels, and Night Vision mode to illuminate dark gaming scenes.

MSI G255F gaming monitor

Processors. When choosing CPUs for basic gaming systems, we will not go to extremes in search of special cost-effective CPU modifications with reduced declared power consumption. Such chips are almost never available at retail, and those models that are offered, despite the declared identical price, usually cost more than classic, more productive variants. So, in this case, we focus on the basic CPUs that are widely available on the market.

In the case of the Intel platform, the 6-core Core i5-12400F (6/12; 2.5/4.4 GHz) retains its processor position. It's nice to note that CPU prices are gradually getting cheaper, so this model in a boxed set with a compact cooler can already be purchased for the equivalent of $120. The attractiveness of the tray variant is questionable, due to the minimal current difference in retail prices (~$5).

The capabilities of the Core i5-12400F fully satisfy us within the basic category. The performance is quite good for its class, and in terms of economy, the basic 12th-generation Intel 6-core also offers decent performance. Under a multi-threaded maximum load, the chip consumes up to 65 watts. In games, the actual figures will depend on the specific project, but on average it is about 40 watts.

The direct opponent and recommended processor for basic gaming configurations on the AMD platform, Ryzen 5 5600 (6/12; 3.5/4.4 GHz), demonstrates very similar energy efficiency. Under the maximum multi-threaded load, it also consumes 60-65 watts, and in games, on average, it needs the same 40 watts.

The power consumption of motherboards mostly depends on the additional equipment, and especially on the processor mode. We focus on the standard modes without taking into account independent overclocking. In the case of the Core i5-12400F, this process is generally significantly complicated due to the locked boost factor, and to overclock the CPU, you need a "specialized" motherboard with an external clock that allows you to significantly increase the system bus frequency. So in practice, this is more of an exotic combination for enthusiast experiments when there are no power outages.

The platform with Ryzen 5 5600 has more options for additional processor acceleration, but these features can be considered a reserve for the future. Nowadays, ways to reduce the power consumption of processors are more useful. Both in the case of Intel and AMD systems, there are technologies that allow you to get good results with minimal loss of performance. With the help of "undervoltage" with a decrease in the processor supply voltage and AMD Curve Optimizer, you can significantly reduce the power consumption of the CPU. The relevant techniques are covered in detail on the web, so if you want to further improve energy efficiency and reduce chip heat, you should read the relevant materials in more detail.

As for the motherboards themselves, for an Intel-based system, we recommend looking at inexpensive Intel B760/B660 models that will allow you to use high-speed memory kits, and for an AMD-based PC, we recommend AMD B550 boards because of PCI-E 4.0 support for the PCI-E x16 slot. In both cases, you can find suitable models for ~$90+.

Recently, there have been rumors that AMD is preparing to release more affordable processors for the Socket AM5 platform. We may be talking about Ryzen 3 7xxx chips or even Athlon CPUs. However, such prospects are unlikely to affect the recommended configurations. Obviously, we will be talking about 4-core models or even 2-core models in the case of Athlon. Of course, this is the prospect of getting the most affordable solutions within AM5 with recommended price tags of ~$100, but for gaming systems, the capabilities of chips with this many computers may no longer be enough. So for the foreseeable future, basic configurations will remain on Socket AM4.

Video cards. Recently, we have been recommending three graphics cards for basic gaming configurations, each of which fits perfectly into the concept of this class of platform - GeForce RTX 3060 12GB, GeForce RTX 4060 8GB, and Radeon RX 7600 8GB. We have repeatedly focused on the capabilities and features of each of the models. If we focus on the actual power consumption of graphics cards, then the GeForce RTX 4060 8GB is the undisputed favorite. Graphics adapters in this line consume ~120 watts of power under load. A similarly performing Radeon RX 7600 8 GB usually requires 150-160 watts, and the GeForce RTX 3060 12 GB model, which is still the most popular among Steam users, requires ~180 watts. In terms of energy efficiency, RTX 40 series graphics cards have a significant advantage. Compared to its predecessor, it is 50% better. And considering that RTX 4060 is usually 10-15% more efficient than RTX 3060, the difference in relative energy efficiency (performance/W) is obviously even higher.

So, if we take into account that in games the bundle of key components "Corei5-12400/Ryzen 5 5600 + GeForce RTX 4060" will consume ~160 W (40 W + 120 W), we can assume that the total figure for a PC based on them will be 200-220 W. This is taking into account the "energy budget" for the motherboard, RAM, storage, and the imperfect efficiency of the power supply. In calculating the power consumption of the entire system, it is also important to include the monitor. Depending on the model, they may vary, but for a typical 24-inch screen with a Full HD panel resolution, you can aim for 15-25 watts.

That is, the total power consumption of the basic gaming configuration is expected to be 220-250 W. This figure can be used as a rough estimate to calculate the time of active operation of the system from an autonomous power source of a certain capacity. For example, if you rely on a charging station with a capacity of 750 W, then its capabilities should be enough for ~3 hours of battery life. It should be borne in mind that during the operation of the station's inverter, part of the energy is spent on converting the voltage to the required 220 V.

The best gaming PC of the month ($1200-1400)

Gaming monitor for the "Optimal Gaming PC" from our partner MSI

The MSI MPG 274URF QD and MSI MAG 274URFW are 27-inch screens with fast 3840x2160 IPS matrices. Both offer extended color gamut, minimal response time, and additional functionality. It's a good opportunity to enable true 4K on the optimum.

Ігровий монітор MSI MPG 274URF QD

MSI MAG 274URFW gaming monitor

Processors. Focusing on energy efficiency when looking for an Intel processor for optimal gaming configurations, you will have to choose between the Core i5-12600KF and Core i5-13400F. These models seem to be the most rational options. If not for the current energy circumstances, the enthusiast model of the 12th generation would have undeniable advantages - an unlocked multiplier, higher operating frequencies, and even a lower price. Especially considering that the tray version of the chip can already be purchased for ~$170. The base processor of the Core i5 line is supposedly the next generation, although it has an identical structural configuration, it has a less aggressive frequency formula and declared TDP.

In terms of power consumption, the Core i5-13400F will consume 70-80 watts under a multi-threaded load, while the Core i5-12600KF will consume about 120 watts. But in games, where the load is high, but not simultaneous on all computing cores, the difference will be noticeably smaller. The Core i5-13400F will be satisfied with ~45 watts, and the Core i5-12600KF will need an average of ~60 watts of power. The 30% difference looks quite impressive, but the actual delta of 15 watts against the background of the overall power consumption of the PC is not so fundamental.

As a result, we can recommend the Core i5-12600KF to users who can spend a little time experimenting with underclocking and then adjust the appropriate mode, further saving energy with minimal performance loss.

If you don't want to tinker with BIOS settings, but want to get a sufficiently energy-efficient chip that is generally suitable for an optimal gaming configuration, then go for the Core i5-13400F. The retail version of the chip, complete with a simple cooler, is already available for the equivalent of $190. The Core i5-13400 version with integrated graphics still costs $30 more, so if you're counting on possible iGPU work, you'll have to increase your budget to $220.

As for the AMD platform, there are no special alternatives to Ryzen 5 7500F (6/12; 3.7/5.0 GHz). Unless you want to have a CPU with integrated graphics as a backup, you should look towards Ryzen 5 7600 (6/12; 3.8/5.1 GHz). We are looking forward to the Ryzen 5 9600X. A 10-15% performance boost will certainly not be superfluous here, but the prospects for this model within the PC of the Month configurations will be determined by the recommended CPU price, which has not yet been officially announced by AMD.

Returning to the existing Ryzen 5 7500F, we note that under a multi-threaded load, the 6-core chip consumes ~75 watts of power in normal mode. In games, the chip consumes about 45-50 watts. So, in general, the performance is similar to that of the Core i5-13400F. Both processors are "professional" for mid-range gaming systems. The Ryzen 5 7500F will provide slightly more additional fps, although the difference will not be fundamental, but in applied tasks, a certain advantage of the AMD chip will be more noticeable. This is an argument in favor of Ryzen 5 7500F, especially given the retail price of $175. However, this is more of a taste thing.

We choose Intel B760 (DDR5) and AMD B650 motherboards based on our own needs for functionality. In both cases, for $140-150, you can find models with moderate equipment and wide system parameter options, including for experimenting with additional power reduction of processors.

Video cards. Despite the intentional tautology, the GeForce RTX 4070 12GB and Radeon RX 7800 XT 16GB have been the best graphics cards for optimal gaming systems for some time now. Traditionally, AMD's representative is a bit faster and a bit cheaper, despite having 16 GB of memory on board. However, GeForce RTX 4070 has a significant advantage in terms of cost-effectiveness, which has recently become a significant argument when choosing any PC component.

The Radeon RX 7800 XT consumes 250 watts of power under gaming load, and overclocked models consume up to 280 watts in normal mode, while GeForce RTX 4070 usually makes do with 200-210 watts. So if you are looking for the most economical solutions in a certain class, then the choice is quite simple.

A difference of 50-80 watts is already quite a significant value when the system is running on a standalone power supply. However, whether it will be decisive when choosing such an important element of a gaming system as a video card is an individual matter.

Taking into account the performance of the key components of the platform, it is not difficult to get an approximate total power consumption of optimal configurations. The Core i5-13400F and Ryzen 5 7500F processors will consume approximately the same amount of power in games (45-50 watts). So, the combination of these chips with GeForce RTX 4070 will require about 250-260 watts. An additional 40-50 watts will be consumed by the board, memory modules, drive, and power supply. Therefore, the total figure for the system unit during an active gaming session will be 300-310 watts. An additional 20-40 watts will be needed to power the monitor. As a result, we have an approximate figure of ~350 watts.

Recently, we tested a PC with a Ryzen 5 7500F + GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER 12 GB combination. The power consumption of the system unit in this case during games ranged from 245-350 watts, depending on the project. However, it is worth noting here that the CPU used the "enhancement" mode from the board manufacturer, which allows for slightly higher operating frequencies under load with appropriate cooling. In addition, the configuration used a more powerful graphics card with a declared TDP of 220 W, instead of 200 W for the base GeForce RTX 4070.

Therefore, with the processor operating in normal mode and using the classic version of RTX 4070, the power consumption of the system unit in the optimal configuration in resource-intensive games will be up to 300-310 watts. These figures can also be used to calculate the potential operating time from a charging station of a certain capacity during a power outage.

Progressive gaming PC of the month ($2000+)

Gaming monitor for the "Progressive Gaming PC" from our partner MSI

The MPG 491CQP QD-OLED is a 49-inch gaming giant with a new generation QD-OLED curved screen. The matrix has a resolution of 5120×1440 and a refresh rate of 144 Hz, and the monitor uses a passive cooling system. The large diagonal and bright saturated colors allow you to take a fresh look at familiar projects and literally expand your gaming horizons.  

MPG 491CQP QD-OLED gaming monitor

Processors. When it comes to advanced gaming configurations, the cost-effectiveness of such solutions is usually secondary. High-performance processors and graphics cards that deliver the maximum number of frames per second do not impress with their energy efficiency. But even so, a rational approach to selection, analysis of existing offers, and additional optimizations can provide a powerful platform without significant limitations with a level of power consumption acceptable for the period of energy restrictions.

Perhaps, only the lazy have not poked Intel with a stick, pointing to the obscenely high power consumption of the manufacturer's top desktop processors. Indeed, the older Core i9 models with a 24-core configuration and sky-high operating frequencies (6+ GHz) have a considerable power appetite and can consume more than 350 watts at peak load even in stock mode. In addition to the price, of course, this is another important reason why we don't choose these models as starting points in advanced configurations.

Obviously, even for powerful gaming platforms, the capabilities of such chips are excessive. They are "revealed" in multi-threaded tasks with a high degree of parallelism, when all CPU resources are involved. Taking into account the already mentioned level of possible power consumption under such loads, even the slightest deviations in the power supply system parameters can affect the overall stability of the system. The high voltages and currents required to push the CPU to its maximum frequencies do have an effect.

However, these potential problems do not apply to the chips that we recommend by default for advanced gaming configurations. Even with the additional conditions with an emphasis on efficiency and energy efficiency, with all the choice of real alternatives to Core i5-14600K/KF (6/12+8; 4.5/5.3 GHz + 2.6/4.0 GHz), there are no real alternatives here yet. But there's no reason to be upset either - the processor "pulls" and copes with its duties perfectly.

Although it is far from the flagship of the desktop lineup, the processor still has a considerable "energy appetite" - no doubt about it. Under a multi-threaded load on all computing cores, the Core i5-14600K can consume up to 180-190 watts. So if you expect to work with rendering, visualization, or video encoding for a long time, don't even hope to get by with an affordable air tower to cool the CPU. You need a proper cooler, and a mid-range SRO is a desirable option.

But in games, the Core i5-14600K is much more energy efficient, requiring up to 100 watts in the most demanding projects. That is, a more or less acceptable level for a powerful Intel chip.

It's too early to talk about the upcoming LGA1851 desktop platform. We won't see the notional Core Ultra 5 235K until October, so it makes no sense to even theorize about its energy efficiency. We hope that this is what the developers will work hard on.

With the AMD platform, the choice of a powerful and economical CPU is as simple as possible. There is such a chip as Ryzen 7 7800X3D (8/16; 4.2/5.0 GHz; 96 MB L3). That's it. It's both the fastest game processor and the most energy-efficient model in this class. There's no intrigue, it's even kind of boring. You just take the equivalent of ~$370 and get the ultimate solution for a gaming PC.

The Ryzen 7 7800X3D consumes only about 80-90 watts under a multi-threaded load. That is, to operate in this mode, the chip needs half the power of the Core i5-14600KF (~180 W). To be fair, the Intel processor is usually a third faster in such tasks, but this certainly doesn't make up for the difference in power consumption. In games, the 7800X3D consumes an average of about 50 watts, and this is the level of chips for basic gaming configurations. Again, the advantage over the Core i5-14600KF (up to ~100W) is twofold, and in terms of fps/W, the energy efficiency of the AMD chip will be even greater.

The Ryzen 7 7800X3D chip has set the bar for gaming performance so high that it looks like even the Ryzen 9000 won't be able to surpass it right away. Even before the official release of the new CPUs, test results began to leak online and, according to the first indicators, Ryzen 9 9900X in games only came close to Ryzen 7 7800X3D. Future chips on Zen 5 with a 3D V-Cache buffer will probably offer an even higher level, but the timing of such CPUs has not yet been specified.

As for the Ryzen 9000, on the eve of the official launch of these chips, which was supposed to begin on July 31, AMD delayed the final release of the CPU, assuring that the processors already shipped to suppliers needed additional testing. However, no specific reason for the delay was given. It seems that some of the chips in the first batches that have already been delivered to partners have some nuances in their operation, so it will take some time to remove and replace them. At the same time, AMD has already set specific timeframes for the delay.

Instead of July 31, the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X models will be available on August 8, and the Ryzen 9 9900X and Ryzen 9 9950X should be available on August 15. The precedent itself is quite atypical, however, given the relatively minor delay, we hope that no significant modifications to the Ryzen 9000 are required and that this is just AMD's desire to be extra safe.

Video cards. Despite trying to get the most energy-efficient system possible, advanced gaming PCs require powerful graphics cards, which are the largest power consumers in such configurations. Therefore, even if you need to choose the most economical solutions, for top gaming platforms of moderate price, we suggest focusing on GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER 16 GB and Radeon RX 7900 XT 20 GB, which are similar in performance. Surprisingly enough, in this case, models from NVIDIA and AMD have a fairly similar level of power consumption. Under load, both graphics adapters will require about 300 watts.

So, an advanced Intel-based PC will consume 450-500 watts while playing games, while an AMD system in a similar configuration will require 50 watts less - 400-450 watts. You will also need to add the needs of the monitor, which depend on the specific model.

The overall figures are quite significant, especially if you take into account that the system can occasionally run on an autonomous power supply. For such cases, there is an effective way to significantly reduce PC power consumption during games. It is enough to limit the maximum fps to 60 frames per second. If the platform is capable of providing 100-150 fps in a certain mode, then after setting an additional limit, the resulting power consumption level can be pleasantly surprising. As well as the noise of cooling systems and CPU/GPU heating. It is worth noting here that you should not reduce the refresh rate of the high-speed screen to 60 Hz, but rather limit the system performance to 60 fps.

Such recommendations seem rather strange when it comes to powerful systems - we don't pay a hefty price for powerful components for nothing. However, this is a situationally necessary measure for the time of centralized power outages, which will allow you to stay longer while working from the charging station without much discomfort. When connected to the mains, you can switch to maximum performance mode, unlocking the full potential of the system.