1
00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:05,960
if you went to the grocery store gave them your money and left with 10% less

2
00:00:04,080 --> 00:00:11,880
vomite than you paid for you'd probably be pretty ticked off but what if I told

3
00:00:07,919 --> 00:00:16,119
you that happens every day except with

4
00:00:11,880 --> 00:00:18,520
$350 CPUs well it's true these 12 chips

5
00:00:16,119 --> 00:00:23,080
were obtained over a span of a month from eight different sources spread

6
00:00:20,480 --> 00:00:29,439
across three separate countries and the real world difference between the best

7
00:00:25,680 --> 00:00:33,879
and the worst of them is 8% in factorio

8
00:00:29,439 --> 00:00:35,800
and as much as is 12% in csgo this has

9
00:00:33,879 --> 00:00:40,800
caused a lot of problems for us over the last 6 months you see in April I gave

10
00:00:38,640 --> 00:00:44,960
the Labs team the goal of increasing our testing throughput so that we could give

11
00:00:42,399 --> 00:00:50,879
you guys more juicy benchmarks in our reviews unfortunately the math was not

12
00:00:48,840 --> 00:00:55,440
in our favor you see the typical turnaround to troubleshoot Benchmark

13
00:00:53,000 --> 00:01:01,559
write film edit and QC our coverage of a new product is 5 to8 business days at

14
00:00:58,960 --> 00:01:05,199
about 5 minutes per test times three runs for consistency checks times

15
00:01:03,600 --> 00:01:09,439
however many products we want to compare times however many games or applications

16
00:01:07,040 --> 00:01:14,920
you guys want to see it is easy to run out of time now we could shorten each

17
00:01:12,280 --> 00:01:19,159
test but we' found that longer tests are more consistent from run to run and end

18
00:01:17,520 --> 00:01:24,119
up being more reflective of the real world experience of using the product so

19
00:01:21,880 --> 00:01:28,000
that's out and I guess we could work through the nights like a bunch of AD

20
00:01:25,360 --> 00:01:32,320
oral out Master students but come on guys we're not that young anymore

21
00:01:30,280 --> 00:01:36,399
automation with mark bench does help a lot but if our system hangs in the

22
00:01:34,280 --> 00:01:40,799
middle of the night which it happens sometimes we're right back where we

23
00:01:38,200 --> 00:01:45,640
started which leaves us with one real option building up more of our test

24
00:01:43,360 --> 00:01:53,520
benches and running our tests in parallel except as I already told you 8%

25
00:01:49,880 --> 00:01:56,280
difference in factorio 12% in

26
00:01:53,520 --> 00:02:03,280
csgo now when I signed the procurement authorization for 11 CPUs I knew that we

27
00:02:00,640 --> 00:02:07,399
were likely to find an outlier or two but then it turned out that this Rabbit

28
00:02:05,039 --> 00:02:13,520
Hole went way deeper than I could possibly have known like this deep

29
00:02:10,280 --> 00:02:15,480
Saveway to our sponsor nexigo whether

30
00:02:13,520 --> 00:02:19,120
you're in need of webcams or VR accessories nexigo has products that'll

31
00:02:17,480 --> 00:02:25,519
make you nexigo wow those are cool learn more

32
00:02:23,480 --> 00:02:29,200
about them at the link below now before you start sharpening your pitchforks and

33
00:02:27,160 --> 00:02:33,959
demanding that AMD's Executives be turned into Al paste or something it's

34
00:02:31,840 --> 00:02:38,519
worth noting that most of our chips were within a few percentage points of each

35
00:02:35,519 --> 00:02:40,599
other even in csgo at 1440p which was

36
00:02:38,519 --> 00:02:45,159
the test that saw the greatest overall spread also when we expand our

37
00:02:43,280 --> 00:02:52,000
comparison to include our full Suite of games that maximum difference Falls to

38
00:02:48,159 --> 00:02:53,959
around 2 and 1 12% far less outrageous

39
00:02:52,000 --> 00:02:57,120
so you don't really have to worry about Buddy in front of you in line getting a

40
00:02:55,720 --> 00:03:04,599
way better gaming experience for the same price but still too big big for us

41
00:03:00,480 --> 00:03:07,159
to buy any two random 7800x 3DS use them

42
00:03:04,599 --> 00:03:12,280
to test two different gpus in parallel and then say well these results should

43
00:03:09,159 --> 00:03:14,480
be comparable now the obvious conclusion

44
00:03:12,280 --> 00:03:19,480
at this point then is guys there's something wrong with your csgo test I

45
00:03:16,959 --> 00:03:24,440
think it's time to get good but the thing is there aren't a lot of variables

46
00:03:21,560 --> 00:03:29,799
here and that's by Design we used the same motherboard same memory same

47
00:03:26,519 --> 00:03:31,799
Windows drive and install we even tested

48
00:03:29,799 --> 00:03:36,200
using phase change thermal pads to ensure that our paste application wasn't

49
00:03:33,640 --> 00:03:40,680
an issue and we chucked our bench in the thermal chamber just for good measure we

50
00:03:38,840 --> 00:03:45,319
are very confident that our numbers are valid and we're going to have the process doc Linked In the video

51
00:03:43,159 --> 00:03:50,680
description if you want to have a look which is all finding good but doesn't

52
00:03:47,519 --> 00:03:53,360
answer the much bigger question of why

53
00:03:50,680 --> 00:03:58,720
do these CPUs vary so much in the first place AMD gave them the same model

54
00:03:56,239 --> 00:04:04,200
number and specifications AMD charges the same price so they should have the

55
00:04:01,000 --> 00:04:07,319
same performance right well back in the

56
00:04:04,200 --> 00:04:09,239
day that was true CPUs would run at

57
00:04:07,319 --> 00:04:13,760
their rated speed and if they didn't it meant they were either broken or they

58
00:04:11,360 --> 00:04:18,040
were about to be but thanks to a relatively recent Innovation called

59
00:04:15,599 --> 00:04:23,120
Dynamic frequency scaling that's no longer the case you see no two pieces of

60
00:04:21,079 --> 00:04:27,720
silicon are the same and whether it's through rolling improvements to

61
00:04:24,840 --> 00:04:31,600
manufacturing or just sheer blind luck you can end up with a processor that is

62
00:04:29,280 --> 00:04:36,280
capable of better than the advertised clock speed now in the old days you

63
00:04:34,080 --> 00:04:41,720
could unlock this extra performance manually through overclocking but

64
00:04:38,759 --> 00:04:46,039
nowadays processors just adjust their own speeds and they do it on the Fly

65
00:04:43,919 --> 00:04:50,919
based on a whole host of factors including user configurable power

66
00:04:47,960 --> 00:04:55,919
profiles and thermal limits AMD's approach is to allow the CPU to clock as

67
00:04:53,440 --> 00:05:00,840
high as it's able until the CPU die average reaches about 90° C at which

68
00:04:59,039 --> 00:05:05,759
point the clock will be dialed back until it reaches equilibrium sounds good

69
00:05:03,320 --> 00:05:11,560
right I mean why be bound by some artificial performance limiter when I

70
00:05:08,440 --> 00:05:13,800
got a golden chip that can go higher and

71
00:05:11,560 --> 00:05:18,759
I actually agree but for the folks who end up with a lesser chip can feel a

72
00:05:16,280 --> 00:05:24,360
little bit like missing out even if AMD is careful to only guarantee clock

73
00:05:20,720 --> 00:05:26,919
speeds that 100% of the chips can hit

74
00:05:24,360 --> 00:05:30,440
and as I mentioned before it's also very inconvenient for our parallel testing

75
00:05:29,160 --> 00:05:36,560
endeavors so what do we do testing lots of it

76
00:05:34,479 --> 00:05:41,720
after throwing cinch at our very first CPU we ran into our very first roadblock

77
00:05:39,880 --> 00:05:48,520
the numbers from run to run can be vastly different I am talking 300 point

78
00:05:44,520 --> 00:05:51,479
spreads on a single CPU run back to back

79
00:05:48,520 --> 00:05:57,039
what the heck right how on Earth are we supposed to narrow down which two CPUs

80
00:05:53,840 --> 00:06:00,479
are within 1% of each other if one CPU

81
00:05:57,039 --> 00:06:03,199
isn't within 1% of itself

82
00:06:00,479 --> 00:06:08,039
as it turns out software was the culprit and software is notoriously hard to

83
00:06:05,680 --> 00:06:11,840
account for have you ever opened up task manager right when you boot up your

84
00:06:09,520 --> 00:06:17,800
system there's no programs running nothing should be happening except wrong

85
00:06:14,880 --> 00:06:21,880
what was that here's the thing even when you're doing nothing your operating

86
00:06:19,599 --> 00:06:25,400
system is busy managing all the behind the-scenes work that keeps your system

87
00:06:23,400 --> 00:06:28,759
running like updating the weather widget synchronizing the clock with a trusted

88
00:06:26,960 --> 00:06:35,919
time server prepping the next thing it thinks you might installing updates and

89
00:06:31,560 --> 00:06:37,800
so much more and we don't really get to

90
00:06:35,919 --> 00:06:44,599
decide when that stuff happens which means that no one result can ever be

91
00:06:41,000 --> 00:06:46,599
taken as gospel truth we do have custom

92
00:06:44,599 --> 00:06:51,560
Windows images that are intentionally debloated to remove some startup

93
00:06:48,960 --> 00:06:56,039
processes to help with this but it only partially mitigates the issue and it

94
00:06:53,919 --> 00:07:00,560
introduces new ones like making our results slightly less representative of

95
00:06:58,240 --> 00:07:04,800
the typical user we feel this trade-off is worthwhile because it helps us to

96
00:07:02,440 --> 00:07:09,039
better isolate our variables in testing but it's not even enough to further

97
00:07:07,199 --> 00:07:15,000
mitigate the amount of work that Windows is doing in the background we can also

98
00:07:11,520 --> 00:07:16,960
increase a process's priority in cinch

99
00:07:15,000 --> 00:07:22,160
we went from seeing points varying in the hundreds down to the tens on the

100
00:07:19,240 --> 00:07:26,560
same CPU that's a big Improvement and enough to use cinebench for our binning

101
00:07:23,919 --> 00:07:31,520
process but we're not out of the woods yet you see with some tests it's not

102
00:07:29,680 --> 00:07:36,759
enough to use the same Hardware at the same process priority because the

103
00:07:33,479 --> 00:07:39,160
benchmarks themselves have built in

104
00:07:36,759 --> 00:07:44,960
inconsistencies Red Dead Redemption 2 for example simulates physics and AI

105
00:07:42,360 --> 00:07:49,080
behavior during a bench run that's a really good thing because if that stuff

106
00:07:46,720 --> 00:07:54,159
was canned our results would not be comparable to actually playing the game

107
00:07:51,840 --> 00:07:58,840
but the bad news is it means that sometimes Arthur loses his hat sometimes

108
00:07:56,199 --> 00:08:02,560
he doesn't sometimes the horse gets shot sometimes it doesn't

109
00:08:00,000 --> 00:08:07,560
which can impact our run-to-run consistency can we ever fully account

110
00:08:04,720 --> 00:08:11,759
for this unfortunately not but by running each test multiple times and

111
00:08:09,720 --> 00:08:17,479
then taking an average we can get a pretty good picture and we can bake that

112
00:08:14,639 --> 00:08:23,879
expectation of noise into our data analysis which finally happens now sorry

113
00:08:20,639 --> 00:08:25,759
for all the Preamble first up gaming for

114
00:08:23,879 --> 00:08:30,400
the sake of legibility we named each of our samples after a Pokémon why Pokémon

115
00:08:29,039 --> 00:08:35,760
I don't know cuz it seemed better than deadly diseases any who looking at the

116
00:08:33,680 --> 00:08:40,000
geometric mean of our gaming results we found a

117
00:08:37,279 --> 00:08:46,200
2.07% spread in average frames per second between the best performing and

118
00:08:42,360 --> 00:08:49,880
the worst performing CPUs and a 2.4 6%

119
00:08:46,200 --> 00:08:52,920
spread in our 1% lows this puts all but

120
00:08:49,880 --> 00:08:55,360
one of our CPU samples within three

121
00:08:52,920 --> 00:09:00,200
frames per second of each other which gives us confidence that we'll be able

122
00:08:57,000 --> 00:09:01,480
to find some close enough CPUs but but

123
00:09:00,200 --> 00:09:07,640
given that 2.46% isn't 1% it also tells us that we

124
00:09:05,399 --> 00:09:13,560
can't just pull any three chips at random nor can we simply look at the

125
00:09:11,000 --> 00:09:18,079
average returnal for instance is a benchmarker dream because a it's

126
00:09:16,640 --> 00:09:23,760
actually a good game that people might want to play and B it is a stunningly

127
00:09:21,480 --> 00:09:29,560
consistent Benchmark which is great for producing results that we can trust when

128
00:09:25,880 --> 00:09:32,640
we're comparing gpus but the real world

129
00:09:29,560 --> 00:09:35,560
is a lot messier than returnal and while

130
00:09:32,640 --> 00:09:41,440
most of our other games both at 1440p and 1080p showed a similar small level

131
00:09:38,880 --> 00:09:46,160
of variance in CPU performance in a couple of games notably Total War

132
00:09:43,519 --> 00:09:52,000
Warhammer 3 and cyber Punk we found larger variants in the 1% lows this

133
00:09:49,320 --> 00:09:57,680
indicates that as run these games are more CPU bottleneck which better reveals

134
00:09:55,200 --> 00:10:04,720
the deficiencies of our worst chips but as you're about to see not all CPU bound

135
00:10:01,040 --> 00:10:08,320
games are bound in the same ways we went

136
00:10:04,720 --> 00:10:11,360
into this process thinking ah CSG go

137
00:10:08,320 --> 00:10:14,240
what a classic CPU gaming Benchmark it's

138
00:10:11,360 --> 00:10:20,440
a shame that it's been replaced by CS2 and we came out of it thinking ah CS

139
00:10:17,240 --> 00:10:22,640
good ridds I mean on the one hand it

140
00:10:20,440 --> 00:10:29,640
does certainly separate the CPUs from each other and our slowest chip Corola

141
00:10:25,839 --> 00:10:32,880
was the slowest s in csgo but on the

142
00:10:29,640 --> 00:10:35,959
other hand the overall variance is so

143
00:10:32,880 --> 00:10:38,000
high and so different from the entire

144
00:10:35,959 --> 00:10:43,680
rest of our test Suite that it becomes almost an outlier data point having an

145
00:10:40,639 --> 00:10:46,399
outsized impact on our results and this

146
00:10:43,680 --> 00:10:51,600
could be for a number of reasons first csgo uses a game engine that is older

147
00:10:48,920 --> 00:10:56,760
than YouTube which has been useful over the years since it was originally built

148
00:10:53,920 --> 00:11:00,279
just for single core CPUs and it can make use of just about all the single

149
00:10:58,880 --> 00:11:05,079
threaded performance that you can give it but it also means that its

150
00:11:02,920 --> 00:11:08,800
performance requirements just aren't very similar to more modern games that

151
00:11:07,079 --> 00:11:16,360
are going to want to see a number of fast cores rather than just one or two

152
00:11:12,440 --> 00:11:18,440
second csgo itself is also old old

153
00:11:16,360 --> 00:11:22,760
enough that any modern gaming CPU can run it so fast that no professional

154
00:11:20,920 --> 00:11:28,480
Esports gamer even could tell the difference anyway and so fast that

155
00:11:26,040 --> 00:11:33,839
limitations in the software itself can start to rear their ugly heads which

156
00:11:30,480 --> 00:11:35,880
adds potential variables basically csgo

157
00:11:33,839 --> 00:11:41,079
is having its Quake three Arena moment after a long run it's time to drop it

158
00:11:39,160 --> 00:11:46,160
and when we reviewed the overall variance numbers without csgo it shows

159
00:11:44,000 --> 00:11:50,360
just how much of an outsized influence that it had on our results the new

160
00:11:48,320 --> 00:11:56,880
results show far less variance closing the spread to just 46% and 1.43% for the

161
00:11:54,160 --> 00:12:02,040
average and 1% lows respectively which is somewhat reassuring for you the

162
00:11:59,399 --> 00:12:08,760
consumer but still doesn't change that our runaway loser corsola is still a dud

163
00:12:06,240 --> 00:12:13,360
Corola consistently underperformed the rest of the chips by so much that when

164
00:12:10,959 --> 00:12:19,120
we remove it from our results our overall spread and performance goes from

165
00:12:15,639 --> 00:12:23,519
1.43% in our lows to

166
00:12:19,120 --> 00:12:25,760
86% that is a massive decrease so what

167
00:12:23,519 --> 00:12:30,360
the heck is wrong with this thing we don't know for sure but one guess is

168
00:12:28,120 --> 00:12:35,199
that the 3D V cach on this chip could be struggling some way because it fumbles

169
00:12:32,440 --> 00:12:40,360
pretty hard in our factorio test where most of the Benchmark can actually fit

170
00:12:37,279 --> 00:12:42,440
on that 3D V cache another possibility

171
00:12:40,360 --> 00:12:47,279
is that it could be the PCIe controller the part of the CPU that communicates

172
00:12:44,320 --> 00:12:51,240
with our PCIe lanes and consequently our GPU this idea comes from the fact that

173
00:12:49,800 --> 00:12:56,120
when it comes to productivity performance sure it's still ain't top of

174
00:12:53,800 --> 00:13:01,079
the class but it isn't flunking like it used to speaking of we actually found

175
00:12:59,279 --> 00:13:06,079
greater variance between our chips in our productivity tests which kind of

176
00:13:03,839 --> 00:13:11,639
makes sense since we no longer have the GPU getting in the way of raw CPU

177
00:13:09,079 --> 00:13:16,519
performance szip brought us a spread of around 3 to 4% for compression and

178
00:13:13,920 --> 00:13:21,519
decompression and blender hovers in the same realm along with our video and

179
00:13:19,079 --> 00:13:25,519
audio encoding Suites the biggest contributor to the size of the spread of

180
00:13:22,959 --> 00:13:29,680
our sample though is Lugia who takes up the bottom spot in pretty much every

181
00:13:27,880 --> 00:13:33,480
productivity benchmark since it wasn't so bad in gaming this

182
00:13:31,639 --> 00:13:38,760
leads us to believe that perhaps there's a problem with the integrated heat

183
00:13:35,120 --> 00:13:40,279
spreader but AMD has made that much more

184
00:13:38,760 --> 00:13:45,120
difficult to evaluate now that all of their CPUs just kind of run at the same

185
00:13:43,240 --> 00:13:50,399
temperature and then adjust their clock speeds to reach their thermal limit so

186
00:13:48,000 --> 00:13:55,279
across our small sample variance in performance is present but not egregious

187
00:13:53,480 --> 00:14:00,639
of course we aren't trying to quantify variants what we're trying to find is

188
00:13:57,759 --> 00:14:04,839
equivalence so how do we do that it turned out to be a bit tricky we ended

189
00:14:02,600 --> 00:14:09,560
up using ukian distance to determine which CPUs were the most similar

190
00:14:07,240 --> 00:14:14,000
unconventional but also kind of cool here's how it works first we scaled our

191
00:14:11,959 --> 00:14:18,839
data so that our five-digit cinebench scores don't overshadow those low

192
00:14:16,240 --> 00:14:22,519
flacking code numbers then we took those scaled numbers and treated each as a

193
00:14:21,160 --> 00:14:26,880
coordinate for a point in multi-dimensional space think about it

194
00:14:24,880 --> 00:14:31,560
kind of like this if we took a plane and chose two points those would each have

195
00:14:28,560 --> 00:14:33,680
an X and y-coordinate well the ukian

196
00:14:31,560 --> 00:14:37,560
distance is the distance between those two points the closer together the

197
00:14:35,519 --> 00:14:41,680
points are the more similar they are and this can be applied for points that

198
00:14:39,000 --> 00:14:46,480
exist in any dimension in our case a 12-dimensional space for productivity

199
00:14:43,720 --> 00:14:50,360
and the 19th dimension for gaming since we're weighing all of our tests as equal

200
00:14:48,720 --> 00:14:55,600
we can then do a bunch of comparisons to determine which CPUs are the most

201
00:14:52,639 --> 00:15:01,480
similar to one another from that four emerge as extremely comparable EV Mewtwo

202
00:14:59,040 --> 00:15:07,600
Raichu and Zapdos with Zapdos being the least equivalent so sorry bro just the

203
00:15:04,680 --> 00:15:13,399
other three they are outside of our tolerance in csgo but the issue is that

204
00:15:10,560 --> 00:15:17,880
the CPUs that did perform identically in that one game were not the tightest

205
00:15:15,959 --> 00:15:22,320
across the rest of the suite meaning that they can't really be trusted on

206
00:15:19,800 --> 00:15:26,240
games that you know you might actually be able to play in conclusion

207
00:15:24,440 --> 00:15:33,240
productivity saw these CPUs perform within roughly 24% of one another and in

208
00:15:29,560 --> 00:15:37,199
gaming we see a spread of 86% in the 1%

209
00:15:33,240 --> 00:15:40,040
lows and just. 1% in average frame rates

210
00:15:37,199 --> 00:15:44,639
now that's tight tight enough we figure that it will allow us to directly

211
00:15:41,720 --> 00:15:52,000
compare GPU results across our test benches wait Ben jez oh yeah you see

212
00:15:49,759 --> 00:15:58,519
where I'm going with this we found near identical CPUs but what about the other

213
00:15:55,000 --> 00:16:01,720
components do they vary time for another

214
00:15:58,519 --> 00:16:03,519
round of testing the main secondary

215
00:16:01,720 --> 00:16:07,639
performance contributors in your GPU test bench are going to be your

216
00:16:05,040 --> 00:16:12,519
motherboard and your RAM but since those still run at fixed clock speeds we're

217
00:16:09,839 --> 00:16:17,720
not expecting nearly as much variance with RAM for example you set the speeds

218
00:16:14,800 --> 00:16:23,480
in your BIOS and then it's either capable or it's not and your system is

219
00:16:20,319 --> 00:16:25,240
unstable and probably crashes all of our

220
00:16:23,480 --> 00:16:29,279
testing is done at the recommended RAM speed from AMD 6,000 megat transfers per

221
00:16:27,959 --> 00:16:32,600
second and if you want to learn even more about how we test our Hardware

222
00:16:31,040 --> 00:16:36,519
we've got a recent exclusive over on Floatplane.com where we have a

223
00:16:34,319 --> 00:16:40,319
featurelength deep dive looking at the improvements we've made to our testing

224
00:16:38,079 --> 00:16:46,240
processes anyway to validate our hypothesis we took one of our future

225
00:16:42,519 --> 00:16:49,680
test CPUs EV and threw it into both of

226
00:16:46,240 --> 00:16:53,600
our new parallel benches in gaming we

227
00:16:49,680 --> 00:16:55,560
landed on. 45% variance in the 1% lows

228
00:16:53,600 --> 00:17:01,560
and less than a tenth of a percent in average FPS that is more than acceptable

229
00:16:59,199 --> 00:17:07,400
and in productivity we ended up in the. 13% neighborhood that means in our

230
00:17:04,559 --> 00:17:11,160
upcoming GPU reviews performed on these three parallel benches we're going to

231
00:17:09,400 --> 00:17:18,120
consider our results to be accurate within plus or minus about.

232
00:17:14,760 --> 00:17:21,039
25% of course that doesn't mean that our

233
00:17:18,120 --> 00:17:24,919
results will be identical to your CPU or to other media and this is one of the

234
00:17:23,160 --> 00:17:28,480
big reasons that we have always encouraged our viewers to look at

235
00:17:26,240 --> 00:17:33,440
reviews from multiple Outlets whenever making a purchase decision oh before you

236
00:17:31,039 --> 00:17:39,039
ask by the way there does not appear to be any Foul Play from AMD with respect

237
00:17:35,960 --> 00:17:41,400
to review sample selection so you don't

238
00:17:39,039 --> 00:17:46,480
have to pick a reviewer for example that buys their own CPUs versus one that gets

239
00:17:43,679 --> 00:17:51,280
seated at least we don't think so we'd have to buy hundreds of CPUs to know for

240
00:17:48,320 --> 00:17:56,360
sure but it appears that the unit that was sent to us for a review which is

241
00:17:53,039 --> 00:17:58,640
Raichu Falls somewhere in the good but

242
00:17:56,360 --> 00:18:05,159
not exceptional range so I think we can put put that conspiracy theory to rest

243
00:18:01,280 --> 00:18:08,000
again another before you ask is yes

244
00:18:05,159 --> 00:18:12,480
driver updates operating system updates and new software that we add to our test

245
00:18:10,080 --> 00:18:16,080
Suite could change our CPU performance spread in the future and we're going to

246
00:18:14,360 --> 00:18:20,159
do our best to maintain our data Integrity by performing periodic what

247
00:18:18,200 --> 00:18:25,080
we're going to call equivalence checks because you guys have asked for Reliable

248
00:18:22,919 --> 00:18:31,480
trustworthy information and you deserve it which brings us to a big issue why is

249
00:18:28,440 --> 00:18:33,000
this task falling to random YouTubers I

250
00:18:31,480 --> 00:18:37,440
mean the automotive industry for instance has government bodies that are

251
00:18:35,440 --> 00:18:42,080
dedicated to verifying the performance of vehicles and ensuring that companies

252
00:18:39,679 --> 00:18:46,960
aren't cheating on their testing then they Dole out big fines when they

253
00:18:44,159 --> 00:18:54,159
inevitably do cheat on their testing with computer hardware there's no such

254
00:18:49,720 --> 00:18:57,600
oversight we and our peers are this thin

255
00:18:54,159 --> 00:19:00,080
open-mouth thumbnail line between you

256
00:18:57,600 --> 00:19:04,760
and getting ripped off and that's a big problem I mean for one thing we don't

257
00:19:02,400 --> 00:19:09,000
have access to the types of testing that large tech companies have and we don't

258
00:19:07,159 --> 00:19:14,039
operate at the kind of scale where we can say for sure if an observation is a

259
00:19:11,159 --> 00:19:18,799
fluke or if it's the result of conniving suits that are trying to save a quick

260
00:19:15,960 --> 00:19:22,799
Buck even buying 11 chips for this investigation that was a huge investment

261
00:19:21,080 --> 00:19:29,000
from our side and not the sort of thing that we can do with every single review

262
00:19:26,880 --> 00:19:32,760
unfortunately all I'm doing is Rand in right now I don't have a solution to

263
00:19:30,600 --> 00:19:37,960
this other than well we're going to keep trying gosh darn it but it just struck

264
00:19:35,960 --> 00:19:42,080
us as we worked on this project that the fact that these companies don't have to

265
00:19:39,799 --> 00:19:47,000
report things like estimated performance in a regulated and standardized fashion

266
00:19:44,679 --> 00:19:51,480
is kind of crazy especially if you consider the kind of money that they're

267
00:19:48,960 --> 00:19:57,880
asking for their most expensive CPUs so what's next well first is going

268
00:19:56,200 --> 00:20:03,679
to be going through the exact same rig remoral with however many 490s it takes

269
00:20:00,640 --> 00:20:05,799
to parallelize our CPU test platforms

270
00:20:03,679 --> 00:20:10,080
and then slowly but surely we're going to be improving our automations and

271
00:20:07,960 --> 00:20:15,559
increasing our test volume especially once we get the lab's website up and

272
00:20:11,600 --> 00:20:18,400
running but good things take time and we

273
00:20:15,559 --> 00:20:26,919
aren't going to rush a good thing especially I'm not going to rush this

274
00:20:21,520 --> 00:20:28,960
segue to our sponsor delete me your

275
00:20:26,919 --> 00:20:32,320
personal information sounds like it should stay personal right I mean it's

276
00:20:30,640 --> 00:20:35,799
right there in the name well data Brokers and other sketchy companies

277
00:20:33,960 --> 00:20:41,280
disagree so they're sharing your data online like it's a family style dinner

278
00:20:38,159 --> 00:20:42,600
eat eat your skin and bones is what it's

279
00:20:41,280 --> 00:20:46,039
what they're saying to each other thankfully delete me is here to crash

280
00:20:44,640 --> 00:20:50,480
the party they'll find out who's spilling your info and get it removed so

281
00:20:48,360 --> 00:20:54,640
that scammers can't use it to batter you with Robo calls and spam emails never

282
00:20:52,799 --> 00:20:59,159
mind that it can also lead to fraud or identity theft because delete me can

283
00:20:56,640 --> 00:21:03,880
mind that for you now what wiping out data held by hundreds of sites by

284
00:21:01,360 --> 00:21:07,159
yourself sounds borderline impossible which is why this whole time I've been

285
00:21:05,280 --> 00:21:11,200
trying to tell you that delete me can do it you don't have to their Nifty

286
00:21:09,280 --> 00:21:15,640
software and expert Squad can sweep it away in minutes not hours delete me

287
00:21:13,320 --> 00:21:20,720
averages over 2,000 pieces of personal data gone for a customer in their first

288
00:21:17,480 --> 00:21:22,559
two years yeah go on delete me get them

289
00:21:20,720 --> 00:21:27,480
and you should get on over to the link below and use code LTT for a sweet 20%

290
00:21:25,679 --> 00:21:31,679
off if you guys enjoyed this video why not check out our motherboard turbo nerd

291
00:21:30,000 --> 00:21:38,760
Edition video where we went into what exactly are all those little things that

292
00:21:33,159 --> 00:21:38,760
look like cities and towns on the PCB