 If you're listening to this on YouTube, this episode is one week delayed. Up to date, tech show but friendly episodes are on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Google Podcasts. Thank you for joining us for another tech show but friendly episode. Our podcast here at Hardware Sugar and I'm your host Anton. For today, we'll be focusing on the basics of the computer, mainly CPU and GPU news. And starting us off with CPU news. We've talked before about how to interpret the googly-goog of numbers and letters which designate CPUs that might be getting a little bit easier with Intel's rebranding move. Although it might just confuse more people. Jury still out. So the rebrand will affect their upcoming CPUs, the 14th gen and onwards. And let's start with the moniker 14th gen. Intel won't tell you anymore. 12th generation, 13th generation, 14th generation. However, the number of the generation will still be found at the top or at the beginning of the processor. So 14500, 14600. Just like it is now with the 1312 and basically all of the previous generations that a lot of people have grown up with. Incidentally, I think the Pentium and Celeron names were also retired. So RIP guys, especially the Pentium series. Long running, long standing, good memories. So we won't have the unwieldy X number gen anymore, but the number will still remain integrated in the CPU designation. Also gone are the I's. So no more I3, I5, I7. Instead it will be Core and Core Ultra. So think Core 1400 or Core Ultra 1400K. Now from the name alone, you can imagine that Core Ultra will be reserved for the higher end CPUs. But Intel has not made clear what will differentiate the Core and the Core Ultra. Like you'd think that the overclockable CPUs, the ones with the K at the end would be Core Ultra. But Intel has said that's not what's going to define or what will determine what is Core and what is Core Ultra. Well only the top high end CPUs, I say for example the 900, 4900B Core Ultra, we have no idea. Madiang up the waters even more is that the upcoming generation will be basically, while marketed as one generation 14th gen, will be based on two different architectures. One, a revamped Raptor Lake. So Raptor Lake is the current generation. They tweaked it a little bit and will be coming out with the tweaked versions as 14th gen. But there will also be a Meteor Lake 14th gen. And Meteor Lake is the brand new CPU architecture of Intel. Will Raptor Lake tweaked CPUs be consigned to the Core name and Meteor Lake will be Core Ultra? We have no idea at this point. Although I really do get annoyed when brands do this that an AMD has done something similar in the past where there are two different architectures. So you can expect wildly different performance and yet they're marketed under the same brand or the same designation. Oh, Intel 14th gen. And if you're an average consumer, you just think 14th gen is based on the same technology all throughout the line. You don't want to have to think because why would they name it 14th gen if the models under that line are wildly different? And again, for the average consumer, usually what happens is that the lower end models are vastly cheaper. So you can expect the tweaked Raptor Lake to be a lot cheaper than the new Meteor Lake based chips. But consumers will take a look and they're like, oh, this 14th gen is a lot cheaper, meaning the ones based on Raptor Lake. I might as well go with that. Mas mura siya. Yes, mas wababa. Pero 14th gen rin naman. How bad can it be compared to the more high end versions of 14th gen? But the more high end versions of 14th gen will probably be based on Meteor Lake. And yes, there will be significant differences between the two even though they're marketed under the same line. So outside of the core core ultra, dropping the i, dropping the X gen designation, outside of all of that, I wish Intel had come up with a better naming scheme for the upcoming Raptor Lake based and Meteor Lake based CPUs. Obviously for marketing, they want to call the tweaked Raptor Lake 14th gen. They just don't want to say, well, this is a baked over version of the 12th and 13th gen, which have done quite good, but maybe might be getting a bit long in the tooth for some consumers. But moving forward, what remains to be seen is if Intel can properly distinguish between the core and the core ultra, that might be useful, especially to the more average consumers that don't follow avidly computer news. Although I wouldn't hold my breath because Intel and AMD really have very confusing designations. You have the F, you have the K, you have the H, you have the U. I mean, this whole kind of alphabet soup that they attach to the processors and then just expect everybody to, yeah, you can kind of figure it out, you can research, but it's really difficult for the average consumer. And then you factor in other considerations like, oh, if I get an overclockable CPU, do I need a motherboard that supports that? Do I even need overclocking? What the heck is overclocking? So the streamlined name is a very small step to addressing a situation which I think can be vastly improved for both sides of the aisle, both for AMD and both for Intel. Moving on to GPU news. Some benchmarks have leaked, so these are very unofficial, very take with a grain with salt, but benchmarks have leaked for the 4060 which puts it at roughly 20% faster than a 3060. Assuming a good price, that's great news. A 20% bump above the previous gen is quite good, especially with the disappointment of the 4060 Ti 8GB card which came out a few weeks ago. Now the X60 series has always been the sweet spot of Nvidia for midrange to a little high-end gaming. The popularity of the 3060 speaks to that. So it would be good if a follow-up to that card would deliver substantial performance boost at a relatively good price. And I know what you're thinking, Nvidia never provides a relatively good price since they've conditioned us to expect more and more expensive GPUs. I mean, yes, it's expensive. Hopefully it will be better price relative to some of their other offerings. But a 20% bump? Not bad. And in Nvidia's defense, they were the first ones to push RTX, so this way of calculating how light falls in a setting to make it much more realistic. They've also pushed upscaling, so that's their DLSS technology. But based on a report by WCCF Tech, the site noted that Nvidia hasn't made it hard for developers to include AMD's and Intel's version of upscaling. So if you have a game that supports Nvidia's DLSS, odds are very, very good that it'll also support AMD's FSR and Intel's XESS, those company's versions of upscaling technology. So Nvidia is like, yes, implement the tech, implement our version, but we also make it easier to implement the version of other companies. However, the same can't be true for AMD. WCCF Tech's article noted that when it comes to AMD exclusive games, and we're talking about games like Halo Infinite, Star Wars Jedi Survivor, Far Cry 6, so all of these AAA games have AMD's FSR technology, but they don't include or they don't support Nvidia's DLSS. So kung baga sa panig na Nvidia, okay lang, implement nyo lahat ng mga posibling variations itong upscale technology. Yung sa AMD, may trend na pag AMD exclusive title, yung AMD tech lang yung A implement. And while there is unofficial DLSS support for some of these games, of course unofficial version is always better, the drivers always cleaner, more optimal, more efficient, more stable. Nvidia gets a lot of flak from a lot of consumers out there, but props to them that they haven't pushed for exclusivity of DLSS. They have a more inclusive approach to upscaling technology. Whereas AMD, there's a trend where okay, we paid for this game to be AMD exclusive, we only want you to implement our version of upscaling technology, which while beneficial to AMD GPU owners, some AMD GPU owners, it leaves out in the cold consumers of Nvidia and Intel cards. And ending with more downer news from AMD, we talked about how the 4060 possibly has a 20% uplift from the 3060, so there's our Nvidia cards. However, the same can't be true for the upcoming RX 7800 XT from AMD. Igor's Lab, another well-known tech source, tried to simulate the performance of a 7800 XT because it's not out yet with a Radeon Pro W7800. So these are different graphics cards, but the 7800 XT is roughly based on the Pro W7800. They roughly share the same tech and specifications. So basically what Igor did was he dumbed down the Pro W7800 to roughly mimic the performance, the possible performance of a 7800 XT and the results were not good. They were just slightly better than the 6800 XT. So the performance roughly falls between the 6800 XT and the 6900 XT. But there wasn't a lot of performance gain. Of course these results are theoretical. They're based on cutting down the performance of that Pro card to something which we think will approximate the performance of a 7800 XT. But a very small performance increase is not surprising given the just released RX 7600 also from AMD, which barely does better than the previous gen 6650 XT. Small incremental benefits seen in AMD's cards at the more mid-range budget end of the spectrum. To be fair, there's 7900 XTX. There is a use case for that. If you want good performance at a good price, but you're not looking for the latest RTX support. So there is a use case to be made. And as I pointed out in the price watch episode coming out tomorrow, Saturday, if you're listening to this on Friday, June 23, we have a price watch episode coming out June 24. I do point out there that the cost, the local cost of a 7900 XTX is roughly 65, 66K, whereas Nvidia's highest top end 4090 is at around 106K. So there's a very big price gap between highest end of AMD and the highest end of Nvidia. So there is a use case. You could argue in some instances why you would want to get a 7900 XTX. But these newer cards of AMD, the 7600 and the 7800 XT when it does come out and if the performance is within the ballpark speculated by Igor's Lab, very hard to think of a good use case for that. Especially because the 6000 series cards are selling at discounted prices now. The prices of the 6000 AMD cards are very good right now for the performance that you're getting. And you're gonna fork over more for a brand new card which only does incrementally better. The economics do not look good for AMD's upcoming set of cards and also the more recent ones that they've released. So not hating on AMD, I myself are for a very long time had an RX 480 I think or 580 480 pang aata as my primary GPU. For CPUs, I do prefer AMD over Intel. I do prefer more competition on the market in general. But I think some of the hate that Nvidia gets is a little unfair. Considering that for most of the cards, the performance is there. The groundbreakingness like RTX, upscaling, the willingness to push the technology forward is there. Yes, prices are high. Yes, some versions look like they're just meant to make money from unsuspecting customers looking at you 4060Ti 8GB. But the general trend of Nvidia at least is let's be daring, let's see how fast we can go. Compared to AMD's perpetual kind of catching up in terms of the GPU space. So that's it for me. Thanks again for lending me your ear for another episode of Textual But Friendly. We do have a price watch episode coming out June 26th, Saturday, where there is surprising news on the price updates on the price front. This is the first time I've seen something like this so very surprising. Do check out the episode yet if you haven't on YouTube. Have a great day, have a great weekend. See you again next Friday for another Textual But Friendly. We also clean and repaste GPUs. Nasamakati yung physical store namin and you can also buy from our site www.hwsugar.ph na 100% palaging up to date yung inventory dun. Kung instock yung item sa amin available yun sa site. We also ship nationwide. Thanks for watching and maybe one of these days magkita tayo sa shop.