1
00:00:01,000 --> 00:00:06,040
AMD played you all for suckers played us

2
00:00:04,240 --> 00:00:12,799
all for suckers really I mean look at this they are releasing basically the

3
00:00:08,599 --> 00:00:15,040
same ryzen 7000 CPUs but for way cheaper

4
00:00:12,799 --> 00:00:19,240
not only that but they run way cooler and they draw way less power I wouldn't

5
00:00:17,600 --> 00:00:24,680
blame you for feeling pretty bad right now but don't feel bad this is exactly

6
00:00:23,080 --> 00:00:27,840
the kind of Sucker Punch that we've got to love because it means the whole

7
00:00:26,240 --> 00:00:31,720
Market is moving in a less costly Direction and it means that AMD is

8
00:00:29,759 --> 00:00:38,239
putting heavy pressure on Intel in a way that we wish they would do to NVIDIA I

9
00:00:34,520 --> 00:00:40,440
mean it's a good thing sameish CPUs

10
00:00:38,239 --> 00:00:45,000
lower price which I mean there's got to be more to

11
00:00:43,079 --> 00:00:49,239
this right what are we giving up an exchange and is it worth the buyer

12
00:00:47,360 --> 00:00:53,600
remorse that I know some of you are feeling right now let's find out right

13
00:00:52,120 --> 00:00:58,199
after I give you buyer remorse for not checking out our sponsor build Redux

14
00:00:56,280 --> 00:01:01,640
build Redux makes it easy to configure your new build with support guides to

15
00:00:59,760 --> 00:01:05,199
help along the way they also offer competitive pricing as compared to

16
00:01:03,160 --> 00:01:10,720
building a PC yourself head to build redoc.com Linus and start your new build

17
00:01:17,360 --> 00:01:24,880
today where the xlabel ryzen 7000 chips

18
00:01:20,520 --> 00:01:28,240
enjoyed TDP ratings of 170 and 105 Watts

19
00:01:24,880 --> 00:01:30,600
taking the uh X away leaves us with

20
00:01:28,240 --> 00:01:36,640
essentially the same CPUs with the same Core specs but at lower base clock

21
00:01:33,520 --> 00:01:40,240
speeds slightly lower boost clock speeds

22
00:01:36,640 --> 00:01:43,759
and a friendly 65 wat TDP with a stock

23
00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:46,360
socket power of just 88 Watts the cash

24
00:01:43,759 --> 00:01:51,920
thread counts and most importantly overclocking support are all identical

25
00:01:49,520 --> 00:01:56,560
and the accompanying 600 series platform keeps all of its capabilities no matter

26
00:01:54,240 --> 00:02:02,280
which CPU you plun into it you're still getting ddr5 PCI Express Gen 5 and the

27
00:01:59,560 --> 00:02:06,680
same rdna2 integrated Graphics cores although as with the X Series chips

28
00:02:04,640 --> 00:02:09,800
those two GPU compute units aren't going to do much more than light up your

29
00:02:08,319 --> 00:02:13,599
display and handle Hardware video encoding and decoding all of which

30
00:02:11,440 --> 00:02:18,239
sounds pretty good though what's the competition up to then good question we

31
00:02:16,280 --> 00:02:23,800
couldn't help noticing that Intel has already launched their nonk competitors

32
00:02:21,480 --> 00:02:27,200
to these chips we noticed when we read about it in the news and it looks like

33
00:02:25,800 --> 00:02:32,319
we weren't the only ones who got completely blindsided by this launch as

34
00:02:30,239 --> 00:02:36,599
far as we can tell there aren't any proper reviews for these chips anywhere

35
00:02:34,720 --> 00:02:41,200
as of the time of recording this could it be that Intel Maiden oopsy whoopsy

36
00:02:38,959 --> 00:02:46,040
underestimated AMD and doesn't really want anyone to talk about these honestly

37
00:02:43,560 --> 00:02:51,239
it kind of looks that way not only did until cut out overclocking support and

38
00:02:48,599 --> 00:02:56,599
cut down base and boost clocks but these chips dramatically exceed their 65 watt

39
00:02:54,640 --> 00:03:02,560
TDP in a way that we didn't observe with AMD and they won't opportunistically

40
00:02:59,440 --> 00:03:05,480
boost forever like the K series will and

41
00:03:02,560 --> 00:03:10,360
like AMD's entire 7000 series will what's worse the core i5 13600

42
00:03:08,040 --> 00:03:15,040
inexplicably loses a big chunk of level two cash that might not sound like a

43
00:03:12,760 --> 00:03:19,159
huge deal but cash can make a huge difference in performance across a wide

44
00:03:16,879 --> 00:03:24,720
variety of workloads including you guessed it gaming so did they kneecap

45
00:03:22,239 --> 00:03:27,720
this chip on purpose unfortunately we don't have any of them on hand so we're

46
00:03:26,560 --> 00:03:31,760
going to have to look into them at a later date and we will look into them in

47
00:03:29,879 --> 00:03:37,000
tell even if I have to personally camp out in front of the store to buy one I'm

48
00:03:34,239 --> 00:03:41,439
kidding nobody's camping out for these coming back to team exciting though AMD

49
00:03:39,599 --> 00:03:44,640
they claim that by simply dropping the TDP they're able to achieve

50
00:03:43,040 --> 00:03:47,599
industry-leading performance per watt which obviously we're going to be

51
00:03:46,040 --> 00:03:51,840
putting to the test today we're going to be using a Noctua nhd15 for cooling in

52
00:03:50,000 --> 00:03:56,200
order to let all of our chips stretch their legs but it should be noted that

53
00:03:53,640 --> 00:04:00,239
the entire non-x lineup ships with a box cooler and you should expect to get

54
00:03:58,040 --> 00:04:04,200
maximum performance out of these ones without spending any extra money on an

55
00:04:02,200 --> 00:04:09,920
exotic cooling solution as with our previous ryzen 7000 review our Intel

56
00:04:06,560 --> 00:04:13,200
bench is using ddr5 6800 and our AMD

57
00:04:09,920 --> 00:04:15,560
bench will be using ddr5 6000 this is

58
00:04:13,200 --> 00:04:20,479
not to give Intel an advantage but rather to keep our comparison Fair AMD

59
00:04:18,479 --> 00:04:24,600
benefits more from running tighter timings and keeping the infinity fabric

60
00:04:22,520 --> 00:04:28,400
clock synced to the RAM even if that is a little lower if you want to learn more

61
00:04:26,639 --> 00:04:32,000
about the infinity Fabric's relationship with RAM we did a whole video on RAM

62
00:04:30,199 --> 00:04:36,960
speed on ryzen a little while ago that is still relevant to the current gen in

63
00:04:34,639 --> 00:04:41,360
CPU bound 1080p gaming shadow of the Tomb Raider starts the non-x chips off

64
00:04:38,759 --> 00:04:47,320
pretty decently with the ryzen 9 7900 and ryzen 77700 falling behind their ex-

65
00:04:44,240 --> 00:04:50,240
cousins by about 8% while the 7600

66
00:04:47,320 --> 00:04:55,880
managed exactly the same performance we tested csgo next but modern chips have

67
00:04:53,240 --> 00:05:00,960
actually gotten so fast that it's quickly becoming irrelevant the lowest

68
00:04:58,199 --> 00:05:04,199
result is450 FPS meaning that the differences basically don't matter and

69
00:05:02,919 --> 00:05:09,440
sometimes the results are even contradictory moving on then cyberpunk

70
00:05:06,720 --> 00:05:12,680
is a slightly worse story for our x-free chips than Tomb Raider was with the dip

71
00:05:11,400 --> 00:05:18,160
and performance sitting at anywhere between 8 and 15% for the higher core

72
00:05:15,800 --> 00:05:21,919
count parts and between 2 to 3% for the ryzen

73
00:05:19,080 --> 00:05:26,560
57600 it's clear then that demanding multi-core optimized games are going to

74
00:05:24,160 --> 00:05:29,759
take better advantage of the X Series much higher allcore turbo

75
00:05:28,160 --> 00:05:33,880
characteristics 1222 brings better news to the non-x

76
00:05:31,639 --> 00:05:38,800
chips though where the 7900 comes within 5 to 6% of its X counterpart while the

77
00:05:36,520 --> 00:05:43,600
ryzen 5 meanwhile manages once again to match its X counterpart which at this

78
00:05:41,199 --> 00:05:47,800
point is becoming a bit of a pattern Far Cry 6 shows a bit more of a gap between

79
00:05:45,479 --> 00:05:52,280
the non-x and X chips though with the 77 in particular falling behind in average

80
00:05:49,720 --> 00:05:57,240
FPS while the 7900 falls behind in minimums and for as the Horizon 5 sees

81
00:05:54,680 --> 00:06:01,440
the 7900 falling further behind thanks to its higher core count and thus low

82
00:05:59,639 --> 00:06:06,919
lower relative clock speeds compared to the 7700 and the 7600 which are mostly

83
00:06:04,319 --> 00:06:11,160
in line with their X counterparts Modern Warfare 2 evens the playing field a lot

84
00:06:09,080 --> 00:06:17,280
though hinting that perhaps the game is a little more GPU bound at 1080p than we

85
00:06:13,840 --> 00:06:18,759
initially realized still the ryzen 57600

86
00:06:17,280 --> 00:06:24,720
seems to fall behind a little here compared to the others hinting that perhaps thread count to a point is more

87
00:06:22,479 --> 00:06:28,319
important for this title the same can't be said for Total War Warhammer 3 though

88
00:06:26,720 --> 00:06:33,160
where we actually got some weird data that looks like a bug with High thread

89
00:06:30,039 --> 00:06:35,639
count chips the 7950 X ends up slower

90
00:06:33,160 --> 00:06:40,560
than the 7900 for example and look at the 13900 K but it seems like it's okay

91
00:06:38,880 --> 00:06:46,000
on the lower core count chips where we see about a 2 to 9% performance gap

92
00:06:42,599 --> 00:06:47,360
between X and non- X's perhaps the most

93
00:06:46,000 --> 00:06:53,000
interesting game we tested though is factorio which is lightly threaded but

94
00:06:49,840 --> 00:06:55,560
still highly demanding in this the non-x

95
00:06:53,000 --> 00:06:59,759
chips performed admirably within 5% of their X counterparts and nearly on par

96
00:06:57,800 --> 00:07:03,160
with Team blue keep in mind as you're looking through these charts guys that

97
00:07:01,199 --> 00:07:07,000
we don't have the price competitive Intel chips on our charts because they

98
00:07:05,160 --> 00:07:12,960
paper launched them you can't actually get them overall then none of our tested

99
00:07:10,039 --> 00:07:18,120
CPUs performed poorly I counted only 17 occasions where any frame rate dipped

100
00:07:14,680 --> 00:07:20,879
below 120 FPS these are all capable

101
00:07:18,120 --> 00:07:26,280
gaming CPUs but more importantly for these new ryzen processors the 7900 came

102
00:07:23,800 --> 00:07:32,759
within 5% of its X counterpart with the 7700 coming within 4% and the ryzen 57

103
00:07:29,520 --> 00:07:37,960
7600 being on average bang on with the

104
00:07:32,759 --> 00:07:41,080
7600 X that is incredibly impressive now

105
00:07:37,960 --> 00:07:42,919
the 5800 X 3D still stands out for the

106
00:07:41,080 --> 00:07:48,879
impressive performance that it delivers on a last gen ddr4 platform but with the

107
00:07:46,039 --> 00:07:54,919
way that ddr5 has come down in price and not to mention the upcoming x3d 7000

108
00:07:51,759 --> 00:07:56,479
series chips am5 is starting to look

109
00:07:54,919 --> 00:08:00,520
like the place to be if you want an upgrade path kind of like our plaid

110
00:07:58,720 --> 00:08:05,319
flannel shirts the place to be they're super comfy and warm and they come in

111
00:08:02,240 --> 00:08:07,080
more fun colors than ever if you're less

112
00:08:05,319 --> 00:08:11,759
concerned with gaming and more concerned with work though you might be a little

113
00:08:09,319 --> 00:08:19,199
disappointed cinebench puts the ryzen 9 7900 at just 88% of its X variant and

114
00:08:15,680 --> 00:08:22,159
the 7700 manages just 80% compared to

115
00:08:19,199 --> 00:08:27,599
the X thankfully with fewer cores to feed the 7600 manages to stick closer to

116
00:08:25,159 --> 00:08:31,599
its unthrottled counterpart which is a pattern that you'll see repeated through

117
00:08:28,960 --> 00:08:36,080
a lot of the tests well a lot of them not all blender is another blood bath

118
00:08:33,880 --> 00:08:41,320
for the new Chips clearly they are power constrained except for the 7600 and

119
00:08:38,880 --> 00:08:46,760
handbrakes av1 encoder has all the non-x chips trailing their almost equivalence

120
00:08:44,320 --> 00:08:52,480
our chromium compile is an example of one of those um for the most Parts where

121
00:08:49,519 --> 00:08:56,959
the 7600 shorter power leash does hold it back and it took a good 7 minutes

122
00:08:54,560 --> 00:09:01,480
longer to finish meanwhile the rest of the non's stayed within spitting

123
00:08:58,920 --> 00:09:06,720
distance of of the X Series none of them it should be noted are going to threaten

124
00:09:02,920 --> 00:09:09,360
Intel since as we'll see their chips are

125
00:09:06,720 --> 00:09:13,760
very liberal with power consumption even compared to the ryzen X Series and in

126
00:09:12,160 --> 00:09:17,880
spite of their power chugging ways they don't manage to win everywhere anyway

127
00:09:16,040 --> 00:09:22,560
even the x-less variants managed to outperform Intel in very light tasks

128
00:09:20,200 --> 00:09:26,440
like Flack en coding other more lightly threaded workloads such as those in

129
00:09:24,200 --> 00:09:31,240
proon are a little easier on the x-less CPUs with the 7900 dropping just over

130
00:09:28,920 --> 00:09:37,399
10% in photo editing and coming within 3% NVIDIA which isn't bad at all the

131
00:09:33,959 --> 00:09:40,320
77 does even better and the 7600 manages

132
00:09:37,399 --> 00:09:45,360
to evenly match its X Series equivalent NVIDIA editing performance pretty cool

133
00:09:43,560 --> 00:09:48,839
now let's take a detour into synthetics to look at seven zip where that same

134
00:09:47,200 --> 00:09:52,959
pattern we saw with heavily threaded loads makes a return it's worth noting

135
00:09:51,480 --> 00:09:57,160
though that in the real world this would be a lot more limited by storage speed

136
00:09:54,839 --> 00:10:02,279
than it would by your CPU so it's mostly academic like w cruncher hey hey segue

137
00:10:00,680 --> 00:10:07,720
why cruncher is interesting though because it lets ryzen Flex its AVX 512

138
00:10:05,240 --> 00:10:12,880
muscles while Intel's chips only have avx2 they still manage to beat the lower

139
00:10:10,440 --> 00:10:17,519
power ryzen chips and this is in part thanks to the absurd amount of energy

140
00:10:14,920 --> 00:10:22,079
that AVX 512 requires causing them to throttle hard to their comparatively low

141
00:10:19,720 --> 00:10:26,680
base clocks now let's head back to the real world with spec work station I'm

142
00:10:24,600 --> 00:10:30,880
not going to lie none of these tests are exactly a win for the new lower-end

143
00:10:28,640 --> 00:10:35,240
Chips and a lot of the performance differences are similar across the field

144
00:10:33,600 --> 00:10:38,839
but there are some cases where they at least come close to their high

145
00:10:36,760 --> 00:10:44,320
performance Intel counterparts like calculu overall then the productivity

146
00:10:41,320 --> 00:10:46,120
performance for the 7900 and 7700 are

147
00:10:44,320 --> 00:10:51,240
only slightly better than their price difference would suggest but the 7600

148
00:10:48,720 --> 00:10:57,959
manages to stand out at an impressive 96% of the 7600 X's performance

149
00:10:54,519 --> 00:11:00,480
effectively making the 7600 X obsolete

150
00:10:57,959 --> 00:11:04,680
it seems like six Z four cores are perfectly happy then running it under

151
00:11:02,320 --> 00:11:09,160
100 Watts speaking of which are you ready for a magic trick what do you get

152
00:11:07,160 --> 00:11:15,839
when you have two processor dieses and a power Target that's under 100 Watts 40°

153
00:11:13,000 --> 00:11:21,600
in Prime 95 that's what that is ridiculous yes before you ask CPU

154
00:11:18,800 --> 00:11:27,959
utilization was at 100% And as you'll see the power draw was as expected

155
00:11:24,440 --> 00:11:30,399
that's just how it is the ryzen 9 7900

156
00:11:27,959 --> 00:11:35,240
then would make an a awesome small form factor CPU not that the others are

157
00:11:32,200 --> 00:11:36,920
slouches either the 7700 does get a bit

158
00:11:35,240 --> 00:11:41,600
toastier thanks to its higher core clocks and single CCD but it's

159
00:11:39,480 --> 00:11:48,320
absolutely in another class than its xlabel twin and the core i7 13700 K the

160
00:11:45,800 --> 00:11:52,519
ryzen 57600 is very much the same story as the 7700 embarrassing both of its

161
00:11:50,720 --> 00:11:56,480
competitors in our lineup here even though it has slightly higher thermals

162
00:11:54,519 --> 00:12:00,000
again thanks to its High Core clocks and single CCD here's all of them on the

163
00:11:58,800 --> 00:12:04,480
same graph that is hilarious I mean why does the

164
00:12:02,040 --> 00:12:10,320
scale even need to go up to 120° right because of the core I9 yeses

165
00:12:08,560 --> 00:12:15,320
core clocks are interesting because while thermals were very low clocks

166
00:12:12,560 --> 00:12:21,079
remained at or above base clock on all of our chips the ryzen 9 7900 while much

167
00:12:18,839 --> 00:12:25,920
lower than its X twin managed to hover around 3.9 GHz before dropping to base

168
00:12:23,720 --> 00:12:31,199
clocks after the first half of the run that is frankly really impressive the

169
00:12:28,160 --> 00:12:33,360
ryzen 777 00 meanwhile is significantly

170
00:12:31,199 --> 00:12:40,160
closer to its twin and hangs around the 4.5 GHz range or about 700 MHz over base

171
00:12:38,000 --> 00:12:45,880
that is phenomenal remember guys that Prime 95 is an unreasonably heavy load

172
00:12:43,480 --> 00:12:50,880
it's a stress test that is designed to make chips choke the ryzen 57600

173
00:12:48,760 --> 00:12:57,279
meanwhile has the same base clock as the 7700 but manages to boost 200 MHz above

174
00:12:54,519 --> 00:13:01,120
and beyond even that chip which you can see when we stack them all together on

175
00:12:58,800 --> 00:13:06,079
the same graph like this it's hard to believe that these are all staying

176
00:13:02,800 --> 00:13:09,680
within 90 Watts but they are here's the

177
00:13:06,079 --> 00:13:11,760
ryzen 9 7900 just embarrassing the 13900

178
00:13:09,680 --> 00:13:18,160
K when you consider the relatively small difference in performance I mean is that

179
00:13:13,839 --> 00:13:19,880
a spike to 350 Watts this same story

180
00:13:18,160 --> 00:13:25,279
keeps playing out because each of these chips maxed out their 90 wat power

181
00:13:21,800 --> 00:13:27,480
Target while Intel shot to the moon the

182
00:13:25,279 --> 00:13:31,560
core i5 is a little less of a power Gremlin and managed to keep things under

183
00:13:29,399 --> 00:13:36,360
200 Watts but I mean just look at this combined graph here it's just a single

184
00:13:33,839 --> 00:13:41,680
line all things considered especially with the energy crisis going on right

185
00:13:38,160 --> 00:13:44,040
now this is an absolute win for AMD how

186
00:13:41,680 --> 00:13:50,160
could we forget performance per watt well we did but in f-122 the ryzen 9

187
00:13:47,720 --> 00:13:55,519
7900 remained at its maximum power throughout the run which just happens to

188
00:13:52,800 --> 00:13:59,639
be much lower than either of the other nine series CPUs and when we capped it

189
00:13:58,240 --> 00:14:03,279
to 100 fpm its power consumption drops even further

190
00:14:01,920 --> 00:14:08,160
while remaining roughly the same distance away from its X counterpart the

191
00:14:05,440 --> 00:14:12,240
7700 isn't that much less power hungry in gaming than its X sibling and we can

192
00:14:10,480 --> 00:14:18,320
see that in action when we cap the frame rate the lines match up pretty well the

193
00:14:15,079 --> 00:14:20,040
ryzen 57600 was already very close in

194
00:14:18,320 --> 00:14:24,600
terms of power and performance to its ex sibling and capping the frame rate gives

195
00:14:22,000 --> 00:14:29,560
us basically the same line which just so happens to be roughly half the power

196
00:14:27,440 --> 00:14:34,000
draw of the core i5 this all works out to a watts per FPS

197
00:14:31,560 --> 00:14:40,040
nearly 3/4 that of the X Series for both the ryzen 9 and 7 while the ryzen 57600

198
00:14:37,759 --> 00:14:45,279
somewhat predictably is roughly the same as the 7600 X for enthusiasts though

199
00:14:43,519 --> 00:14:50,079
stock performance is only part of the story we couldn't run our entire test

200
00:14:47,399 --> 00:14:54,480
Suite on all of the new Chips but we did run the 7900 in a handful of

201
00:14:52,079 --> 00:14:59,040
applications to see if you can simply save a few bucks by altering the power

202
00:14:56,759 --> 00:15:03,639
Targets in the BIOS yourself and then scribbling your own little X onto the

203
00:15:00,480 --> 00:15:08,440
heat spreader and it looks like you kind

204
00:15:03,639 --> 00:15:10,880
of can is that a 1% difference in cine

205
00:15:08,440 --> 00:15:15,880
bench considering the fact that we are not even manually overclocking the chip

206
00:15:13,600 --> 00:15:22,000
all we're doing is letting it draw more power this is phenomenal I mean I can't

207
00:15:19,560 --> 00:15:26,680
speak to what overclocking potential Above and Beyond stock boost operation

208
00:15:25,079 --> 00:15:31,399
whatever you want to call that would be there you know maybe the axes are better

209
00:15:28,560 --> 00:15:36,959
Bend chips but if all you want is for it to run out of the

210
00:15:33,720 --> 00:15:39,199
box these things look great especially

211
00:15:36,959 --> 00:15:43,959
for the money although it should be noted that cost comparisons are

212
00:15:41,680 --> 00:15:49,560
complicated somewhat by the underlying platforms today while the non x7000

213
00:15:47,399 --> 00:15:54,880
series chips are significantly less expensive than even Intel's KF skes not

214
00:15:52,519 --> 00:15:59,199
to mention they come with coolers Intel does still hold the crown here in raw

215
00:15:56,920 --> 00:16:06,240
performance and maybe more more importantly the LGA 17700 platform

216
00:16:01,920 --> 00:16:08,600
supports both ddr5 and ddr4 making it

217
00:16:06,240 --> 00:16:12,759
somewhat more versatile and cheaper to build on especially if you go with an

218
00:16:10,600 --> 00:16:18,360
older 600 series Intel chipset motherboard instead of a 700 series one

219
00:16:15,880 --> 00:16:22,959
ddr5 may no longer be a scalper item and its price premium has been coming down

220
00:16:20,399 --> 00:16:28,279
but a kit of ddr5 6000 is still going to set you back about double what a low

221
00:16:25,000 --> 00:16:30,759
latency ddr4 3600 kit would if your

222
00:16:28,279 --> 00:16:35,480
angle is the F-word future proofing AMD's socket am5 platform is newer and

223
00:16:33,639 --> 00:16:40,600
AMD has committed to supporting it through 2025 and Beyond which normally

224
00:16:38,959 --> 00:16:46,279
is the kind of claim that I wouldn't take at face value but with AMD's

225
00:16:43,240 --> 00:16:49,079
history with socket am4 and am3 before

226
00:16:46,279 --> 00:16:53,120
that I at least want to trust them Intel's pattern meanwhile though is to

227
00:16:50,920 --> 00:16:58,079
just release two CPU Generations per platform and that is it so that money

228
00:16:55,720 --> 00:17:02,959
that you're saving today by going ddr4 on Intel could end up costing you down

229
00:17:00,279 --> 00:17:07,760
the road if you're a frequent upgrader so then is this the shot in the ARM that

230
00:17:04,559 --> 00:17:09,400
AMD needed post rptor Lake I think so

231
00:17:07,760 --> 00:17:13,880
while it's a step in the opposite direction to competing in terms of

232
00:17:11,199 --> 00:17:18,120
performance it is a leap in the right direction in terms of value not only

233
00:17:16,520 --> 00:17:22,079
that but the thermal output of these CPUs is low enough that you could put

234
00:17:20,039 --> 00:17:27,000
any one of them into a small form factor rig with a lowprofile cooler and get

235
00:17:24,600 --> 00:17:31,160
stock performance out of them I mean you'd need to drop to a non-case to do

236
00:17:29,320 --> 00:17:34,640
that on Intel right now and even then things could get pretty toasty we don't

237
00:17:33,120 --> 00:17:39,120
know for sure because Intel evidently doesn't want anyone to look too closely

238
00:17:36,360 --> 00:17:42,000
hopefully that changes for now though I guess it doesn't really matter what

239
00:17:40,440 --> 00:17:47,120
Intel's doing because with these new Chips AMD has something in their lineup

240
00:17:44,160 --> 00:17:51,679
for just about everyone just like I have this segue for everyone to our sponsor

241
00:17:49,919 --> 00:17:56,600
Squarespace if you're building your brand online in 2022 you should

242
00:17:53,960 --> 00:18:01,720
absolutely have a website and if you need a tool to help build that brand and

243
00:17:59,240 --> 00:18:06,400
website look no further than Squarespace Squarespace is the all-in-one platform

244
00:18:03,799 --> 00:18:10,280
to make expanding your brand online easy you can make a beautiful website engage

245
00:18:08,320 --> 00:18:14,320
with your audience and you can sell anything and everything from products to

246
00:18:12,039 --> 00:18:18,559
content we love Squarespace so much we use it here at Linus Media Group its

247
00:18:16,679 --> 00:18:21,840
custom templates make it easy to stand out with a beautiful site that fits your

248
00:18:20,120 --> 00:18:25,880
needs and you can maximize your visibility thanks to their Suite of

249
00:18:23,559 --> 00:18:29,000
integrated SEO features their analytic insights help you optimize your

250
00:18:27,400 --> 00:18:32,440
performance so you can see what's going well and What needs a little work so get

251
00:18:31,440 --> 00:18:39,080
started today and head to squarespace.com to get 10% off your first purchase if

252
00:18:37,440 --> 00:18:43,440
you guys enjoyed this video go check out our review on Intel's 13th gen K series

253
00:18:41,480 --> 00:18:47,039
core processors for more details on the Raptor Lake platform here's the hoping

254
00:18:45,480 --> 00:18:53,679
that Intel and AMD keep one uping each other like this man even lowcost

255
00:18:49,440 --> 00:18:53,679
processors are cool again it's great