The Asus TUF Gaming T500 is a mobile CPU-powered desktop for better thermals

[zohaibahd]

Cutting corners: Asus has taken the wraps off its latest compact gaming desktop, the TUF Gaming T500. It may look like your average gaming rig at first, but it bucks the traditional desktop mold by utilizing mobile CPUs rather than their full-sized desktop counterparts.

At the heart of the TUF Gaming T500 is up to an Intel Core i7-13620H processor. This is a 6+4 core CPU with 16 threads and boosted clock speeds reaching 4.9GHz, which should provide plenty of muscle for gaming and multitasking. Asus claims the mobile chip allows for desktop-level gaming performance with much lower temperatures compared to traditional desktops.

Typically, laptop CPUs run hot due to thermal constraints, but the T500's full desktop tower design with improved airflow and cooling should keep the i7-13620H from throttling. Add to that the custom cooling solution with a large 90mm fan, heatsink, and three heat pipes for improved heat dissipation.

On the graphics front, the T500 can be equipped with up to an Nvidia GeForce RTX 5060 Ti desktop GPU. This is a 16GB VRAM graphics card, based on Nvidia's newest Blackwell architecture. It's capable of delivering high frame rates at 1440p gaming and very decent 4K gameplay as long as you turn on DLSS.

Lower spec models are available as well, with options like the RTX 5060 8GB (which we don't recommend), RTX 4060 8GB, or RTX 3050 6GB. These will be paired with up to 64GB of blazing-fast 5200 MHz DDR5 memory and up to 2TB of PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSD storage.

On the outside, the T500 chassis is quite the looker and takes design cues from mecha anime with its bold, futuristic aesthetic. Models are available with either a tempered glass or solid metal side panel, both accented by customizable RGB lighting.

As for the I/O upfront, you get USB-C and USB-A ports, while the rear has additional USB 2.0 ports, video outputs, Ethernet, and audio jacks. Meanwhile, connectivity comes by way of Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.4. Asus has built the T500 to withstand "harsh conditions," meeting MIL-STD-810H standards for durability against drops, extreme temperatures, altitude exposure, and vibrations. An unusual if interesting feature addition for a gaming desktop, should we say.

All in all, the TUF Gaming T500 seems well-suited for gamers who prioritize space savings or low power usage without skimping on performance. Pricing specific to each variant has not been announced, but the product page does quote a (somewhat ambiguous) $1,299 which might be a starting price.

Permalink to story:

The Asus TUF Gaming T500 is a mobile CPU-powered desktop for better thermals

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Why do this when a X3d chip would offer better performance and relatively low power use?

 

[opckieran]

Why do this when a X3d chip would offer better performance and relatively low power use?

Probably because Intel is in such dire straits that they’re willing to sell a reliable, high volume partner like ASUS 5-10 comparatively ancient 13620H CPUs for the price of a single X3D from AMD. There’s no way AMD is going to want to devalue the current best gaming CPUs on the market in the same way, which is fine for them.


That and the platform cost is going to be way lower for a mobile CPU too thanks to lower power, thermals, and a simpler motherboard design compared to any high-end desktop CPU.


TL;DR
For ASUS, it’s maybe 15-30% the cost to produce the CPU+Mobo+Cooling+PSU for the mobile Intel offering vs a desktop AMD X3D offering.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Probably because Intel is in such dire straits that they’re willing to sell a reliable, high volume partner like ASUS 5-10 comparatively ancient 13620H CPUs for the price of a single X3D from AMD. There’s no way AMD is going to want to devalue the current best gaming CPUs on the market in the same way, which is fine for them.

Perhaps, but I dont see intel selling their last gen mobile parts at a loss to compete. There's no way they can sell core i7 mobile parts for $40 a pop and break even.

That and the platform cost is going to be way lower for a mobile CPU too thanks to lower power, thermals, and a simpler motherboard design compared to any high-end desktop CPU.


TL;DR
For ASUS, it’s maybe 15-30% the cost to produce the CPU+Mobo+Cooling+PSU for the mobile Intel offering vs a desktop AMD X3D offering.

Here I disagree. Designing a motherboard for what is a desktop core i5 with some fancy binning is no less expensive then designing a motherboard for a normal desktop i5. The burst power use of the i7-13620H is 115w, which is higher then the peak power of the 9800x3d, and its sustained power with desktop cooling is going to be within 20w of the 9800x3d. This isnt a pentium or an atom where you could make actual meaningful cuts to the power delivery VS the 9800x3d.

 

[NumberNine]

Agreed. $1300 for a desktop with a laptop CPU only makes sense to the vendor's accounting department.

 

[loki1944]

Overpriced

 

[opckieran]

Perhaps, but I dont see intel selling their last gen mobile parts at a loss to compete. There's no way they can sell core i7 mobile parts for $40 a pop and break even.

Here I disagree. Designing a motherboard for what is a desktop core i5 with some fancy binning is no less expensive then designing a motherboard for a normal desktop i5. The burst power use of the i7-13620H is 115w, which is higher then the peak power of the 9800x3d, and its sustained power with desktop cooling is going to be within 20w of the 9800x3d. This isnt a pentium or an atom where you could make actual meaningful cuts to the power delivery VS the 9800x3d.

The 13 series uses an older node and made by Intel themselves for a while now, so I’d imagine they have had time to significantly improve yields and reduce costs. In contrast, the 9800X3D uses a new, cutting edge manufacturing technique by changing the placement of the 3D Cache.

Alternatively, If you wanted to feature one of AMD’s mobile X3D, the cost would be even higher than the $480 the 9800X3D currently costs, so the per unit cost of the older i7 could be $80-$100 in bulk for ASUS rather than $40 (also considering 15-20% cost of the X3D). Not that it would surprise me to see Intel cutting additional deals for what is becoming aging stock, since those chips are either going to be sold for less cost today or risk a loss 12-18 months from now. There’s no way AMD would offer that kind of flexibility on their X3D lineup. Performance-crown premium aside, it has been rumored that AMD themselves have admitted they can’t produce X3D in the same quantities as the rest of their lineup.

Mobile platforms in general will be constrained regardless of how their desktop counterparts perform. And Intel’s non-K desktop CPUs are surprisingly quite sane when it comes to power and temps, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see a reduced platform robustness requirement compared to an X3D desktop or mobile. Also, most X3D customers aren’t going to want the sort of manufacturing compromise that would bring costs down, since it would compromise performance too. They aimed for top performance, paid top dollar, so they’ll want a platform that won’t hold throttle performance to whatever extent they can manage, which is just going to cost more no matter how you look at it.


In the end, X3D or not, this product by ASUS is not meant to be a top performer. It’s also more niche than high-volume, so for them to build it significantly more robustly than it currently is would be a huge risk for them.


Personally, I wish ASUS opted for one of AMD’s older mobile offerings instead, like a Zen 4 7840HS or Zen 3+ 7735HS/7435HS (or even their 6 core counterparts), but the fact that they didn’t suggests to me that Intel gave them a better deal.

 

[themastergoose]

In a NUC sized device, give me a mobile CPU all day long. When you have a small tower case and ample space and airflow, heat and power constraints are rarely an issue. Who does this cater for, exactly?

It's not like it's cheap neither for the spec on offer.

 

[Burty117]

TL;DR
For ASUS, it’s maybe 15-30% the cost to produce the CPU+Mobo+Cooling+PSU for the mobile Intel offering vs a desktop AMD X3D offering.

Here I disagree. Designing a motherboard for what is a desktop core i5 with some fancy binning is no less expensive then designing a motherboard for a normal desktop i5.

You guys are aware we’re talking about Asus? Who already makes motherboards for both desktop platforms? So ZERO designing would need to happen for the X3D parts, they already make a large variety of motherboards.

I’d argue this was the more expensive route to take, they couldn’t use a pre-existing motherboard they already designed, they’d have had to start from an Intel template or something.

 

[Megalomaniac]

For $1300 you want a computer that can't be upgraded???

Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Just buy a laptop and plug it in with an HDMI cable.

 

[thewelshbrummie]

Why do this when a X3d chip would offer better performance and relatively low power use?

Same answer as it always is when someone asks where the AMD version is.

Because AMD are limited by TSMC for chip production. Like it or not, Intel still has its own fabs to manufacture chips. Doesn't matter what you think of Intel or otherwise, AMD simply can't produce on the same scale as Intel. The question to ask if if Asus can source enough 9800x3d chips to justify the R&D of making an AMD version and the potential quantity of making a decent profit. I assume that they can't.

That's where your thoughts on R&D costs matter. I agree with you on that - but there's little point if the number of chips you can get limit the potential return on investment. Considering the difficulty in sourcing 9800x3d chips due to DIY demand, Intel only makes sense for Asus to have a chance to make a decent profit on this product.

Think of it like Boeing vs Airbus. Airlines may well want to switch to Airbus A320s over the 737Max but Airbus can only produce a set number of aircraft. When the options is "an aircraft that is delayed or not one I want to fly in" vs "no flight available because there isn't an aircraft available due to supplier shortage", airlines will simply buy what they can get. Computers are no different, there's no point in complaining about the lack of an AMD version if the alternative is no version at all.

The burst power use of the i7-13620H is 115w, which is higher then the peak power of the 9800x3d, and its sustained power with desktop cooling is going to be within 20w of the 9800x3d. This isnt a pentium or an atom where you could make actual meaningful cuts to the power delivery VS the 9800x3d.

Would help if you compare accurately. The base power of the 13620H is 45W, max turbo 115W. For gaming it's likely to draw somewhere in between those numbers.

The DEFAULT power of the 9800x3d, as stated by AMD, is 120W. AMD don't list PPT powerdraw but multiple sources cite 162W as the absolute max power - this link from Techpowerup states as much. There's also no number given for minimum TDP either.

I suspect that the Intel mobile chip would likely draw less power than a full desktop sized 9800x3d. Would love to see benchmarks to prove that but instinct is that a mobile designed part will likely draw less power than a desktop one that isn't limited by a requirement to run on a battery for a decent amount of time.

Implying that the peak power of the AMD chip is lower when it, by the spec sheet, can draw more, isn't a fair statement.

 

[amghwk]

Talk about regression.....

There's a reason desktop processors are no-holds-barred powerhouses.

With a good airflow casing and good fans, the desktop will blow everything out of the water.

To even think about thermal issues in a desktop.... Well, I'll be ...

 

[disinfect8280]

Cutting corners is the perfect headline. It barely looks smaller than a standard desktop mid-tower. So what is the point? The only benefit is to Asus profit margins.