Best Laptop CPU? AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 185H
Summary
TLDRThis video compares Intel and AMD processors in laptops, focusing on gaming performance, battery life, and efficiency. The AMD processor excels in battery life, rendering tasks, and lower power efficiency, while Intel shows strength in single-core performance and integrated graphics for gaming. The script also discusses the importance of considering the price-to-performance ratio and the impact of integrated graphics on thinner laptops. The conclusion suggests AMD's overall better performance, especially in non-gaming tasks and lower power scenarios.
Takeaways
- 🔋 AMD laptops generally have better battery life compared to Intel, with the AMD version lasting 35% longer in the YouTube video playback test.
- ⚡️ AMD processors show better performance on battery power, maintaining an 8% lead in multicore performance over Intel in Cinebench 2024 tests.
- 💻 In terms of power efficiency, AMD CPUs are more power efficient at all power levels, achieving higher Cinebench Multicore scores with less power.
- 🎮 For gaming, there's no significant difference in performance between AMD and Intel in most games tested, with AMD showing a slight edge in some titles.
- 💾 AMD's integrated graphics outperform Intel's, especially in games like Cyberpunk 2077, providing a smoother gaming experience.
- 🌡️ Despite using less power, AMD laptops ran hotter, but the Intel laptop felt warmer to the touch, indicating different thermal management approaches.
- 📊 In non-gaming workloads, AMD CPUs performed better, particularly in rendering tasks, with significant leads in applications like Blender and V-Ray.
- 💰 At the time of the review, the AMD version of the ASUS Zephyrus G16 was priced higher but included double the RAM compared to the Intel version.
- 🏁 Intel's Meteor Lake processors showed some performance issues in specific games like Red Dead Redemption 2, where AMD had a 10% lead.
- 🆕 Intel's newer Lunar Lake processors, while not targeted for gaming laptops, promise higher single-core performance and better integrated graphics.
Q & A
What are the key differences between Intel and AMD processors mentioned in the script?
-The script highlights that Intel processors offer more total CPU cores but fewer threads due to the lack of hyperthreading on their E cores, while AMD's Zen 5c cores do support hyperthreading. Both have a 5.1GHz max single core boost and 24MB of L3 cache. They also both support LPDDR5X memory, with AMD allowing slightly faster RAM speeds.
How does battery life compare between Intel and AMD laptops in the test?
-The AMD laptop outperformed the Intel one in battery life, lasting almost 12 hours in the YouTube video playback test compared to the Intel laptop's nearly 9 hours, which is a 35% longer battery life for the AMD version.
What was the performance difference when running on battery power?
-When running on battery power, the AMD processor scored 11% higher in the Cinebench 2024 multicore test with chargers connected. At battery power, AMD still led in multicore performance with an 8% lead, while Intel took the lead in single core performance with a small gap.
How does AMD's power efficiency compare to Intel's in the tests?
-AMD's processors were found to be more power efficient at all power levels, able to achieve higher Cinebench Multicore scores with less power. At a 15-watt TDP, AMD scored 69% higher in multicore performance compared to Intel.
What was the performance difference in various applications like Blender, V-Ray, and MATLAB?
-AMD showed a significant lead in applications like Blender and V-Ray, with a 39% faster completion time in Blender at 35 watts and substantial leads in V-Ray and Corona rendering workloads. However, MATLAB performed better on Intel, making it a better choice for heavy MATLAB users.
How did the integrated graphics performance compare between Intel and AMD?
-AMD's integrated graphics were substantially faster, with a 70% lead in Cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p high settings, making it usable at nearly 60 FPS, whereas Intel was significantly slower.
What was the average gaming performance difference between Intel and AMD processors across 20 games?
-On average, there was no significant difference in gaming performance between the two processors across 20 games tested at 1080p, with AMD being only 0.35% faster. At 1440p, AMD showed a slight advantage with an average lead of 1.6%.
How do the prices of the ASUS Zephyrus G16 laptops with Intel and AMD processors compare?
-At the time of recording, the AMD version of the ASUS Zephyrus G16 with RTX 4070 graphics was priced at $2300 USD, while the Intel version with half the RAM was at $2000 USD. However, the Intel version in the US only has 16GB of memory, unlike the 32GB in the tested model.
What are the recommendations for laptop buyers considering the Intel and AMD processors?
-For gaming performance, either processor will suffice as the difference is minimal. However, AMD offers better battery life, performance in non-gaming workloads, and integrated graphics, especially beneficial in thinner laptops with lower power limits.
What is the script's stance on Intel's newer Lunar Lake processors in comparison to AMD?
-The script suggests that Intel's newer Lunar Lake processors, while having higher single core performance and better integrated graphics, may not be competitive for multicore performance and may not be used in gaming laptops according to one large brand's plans.
Outlines
💻 CPU Comparison for Gaming Laptops
The script compares Intel and AMD processors in gaming laptops, focusing on various aspects such as gaming performance, thermals, power draw, battery life, and integrated graphics. It mentions that Intel offers more total CPU cores but fewer threads due to the lack of hyperthreading on their E cores, while AMD's Zen 5c cores have hyperthreading. Both CPUs have a 5.1GHz max single core boost and 24MB of L3 cache, and support LPDDR5X memory, with AMD allowing slightly faster RAM speeds. The testing was done on two identical ASUS Zephyrus G16 laptops with the only difference being the CPUs. The AMD laptop had better battery life, lasting 35% longer than the Intel one in a YouTube video playback test. AMD also showed better performance on battery power in multicore tests. The script discusses power efficiency, with AMD showing higher multicore scores in Cinebench with less power. The testing was done at 35 and 80 watts to represent different laptop types. AMD's performance per watt was better, and despite running hotter, the Intel laptop felt warmer externally. Clock speeds varied, with AMD reaching higher speeds possibly due to fewer cores sharing power.
🎮 Gaming and Application Performance
The script discusses the performance of Intel and AMD processors in various applications and games. In Blender, AMD was faster at both 35 and 80 watts. In rendering workloads like V-Ray and Corona, AMD also showed significant leads. However, MATLAB performed better on Intel. 7-Zip compression and decompression tests favored AMD, especially at 35 watts. Crossmark showed Intel to be faster, while Handbrake and Adobe Premiere Pro favored AMD, though the leads were smaller. Adobe Photoshop and Geekbench also leaned towards AMD. The script summarizes that AMD was generally faster in most tests at lower power levels, but the performance gap closed at higher power levels. AI performance could not be compared due to a lack of benchmarks. Gaming tests at 1080p and 1440p resolutions showed little difference in performance between the two CPUs, with AMD having a slight edge in some games like Red Dead Redemption 2. The script also mentions that the CPU difference matters less at higher resolutions where games are more GPU-bound.
💸 Pricing and Value Considerations
The script compares the pricing and value of the ASUS Zephyrus G16 laptops with Intel and AMD CPUs. It notes that the AMD version costs $2300 USD with an RTX 4070 GPU and 32GB of RAM, while the Intel version costs $2000 USD but only comes with 16GB of RAM in the US. The Intel version has been available for sale at a much cheaper price, making it better value from a cost per frame perspective. The script suggests that for gaming performance, either CPU would suffice, but AMD's CPU offers better battery life and performance in non-gaming workloads, especially rendering tasks. AMD's integrated graphics also provide better performance for laptops without discrete graphics. The script concludes that while Intel may currently offer better value, AMD's CPU is a better choice for thinner laptops with lower power limits and for those who need better integrated graphics.
🔍 Final Thoughts on CPU Selection
The script concludes with final thoughts on choosing between Intel and AMD CPUs for laptops. It reiterates that for gaming, the performance difference is minor, and one could choose based on price. However, AMD's CPU offers better battery life and performance in non-gaming tasks, especially at lower power levels. The script also mentions Intel's newer Lunar Lake CPU, which may have better single-core performance and integrated graphics but may not be competitive in multicore performance. It suggests that for smaller and lighter laptops, one should check benchmarks for Intel's Lunar Lake once released to compare with AMD. The script ends by reminding viewers that there are many factors to consider when buying a laptop, not just the CPU, and encourages them to check out a full review of the ASUS Zephyrus G16 for more insights.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡CPU
💡Intel
💡AMD
💡Cinebench
💡Battery Life
💡Power Efficiency
💡Thermals
💡Integrated Graphics
💡Gaming Laptops
💡Software Benchmarks
💡Power Limit
Highlights
Comparison of Intel and AMD processors in various aspects such as gaming, applications, thermals, power draw, battery life, and integrated graphics.
Intel offers more total CPU cores but less threads due to the lack of hyperthreading on E cores, while AMD's Zen 5c cores have hyperthreading.
Both CPUs have a 5.1GHz max single core boost and 24MB of L3 cache, supporting LPDDR5X memory with AMD allowing slightly faster RAM speeds.
Fair testing conducted using two identical ASUS Zephyrus G16 gaming laptops with the only difference being the CPUs.
AMD laptops typically have better battery life, with the AMD version lasting 35% longer in video playback test compared to Intel.
AMD processor scores 11% higher in Cinebench 2024 multicore test when both CPUs are plugged in, and maintains an 8% lead on battery power.
Intel leads in single core performance on battery power, but the gap is small.
AMD is more power efficient at all power levels, reaching higher Cinebench Multicore scores with less power.
AMD's new processor shows better performance per watt, performing better while using less power.
AMD laptop runs hotter despite using less power, but the Intel machine feels hotter on the outside.
AMD's lower and higher powered cores reach higher clock speeds than Intel, possibly due to fewer cores sharing the power budget.
AMD completes Blender tasks faster than Intel at both 35 watts and 80 watts.
AMD shows significant wins in rendering workloads like V-Ray and Corona.
Intel performs better in MATLAB, while AMD excels in 7-Zip compression and decompression.
Crossmark test shows Intel 24% faster at 35 watts, but AMD faster in Handbrake video transcoding.
AMD has a subtle lead in video editing with Adobe Premiere and DaVinci Resolve.
AMD is 12% faster in Adobe Photoshop at 35 watts and 7% faster at 80 watts.
AMD is 10% faster in Geekbench single core tests and has less multicore performance gap at higher power levels.
AMD's integrated graphics outperform Intel's by a significant margin in games like Cyberpunk 2077.
Pricing comparison shows AMD's laptop costs more but includes double the RAM, affecting value for money considerations.
AMD's better battery life and performance in non-gaming workloads, especially rendering tasks, make it a compelling choice.
For gaming performance, the choice between Intel and AMD processors is minor, but AMD's integrated graphics provide a significant advantage in thin laptops.
Transcripts
Don’t buy the wrong CPU in your next laptop!
I’ve compared these Intel and AMD processors in 20 games, applications, thermals, power draw,
battery life, integrated graphics and more to help you make the right choice!
Intel are offering more total CPU cores, but less threads, as their E cores don’t
have hyperthreading, while AMD’s lower powered Zen 5c cores do. Both CPUs have
a 5.1GHz max single core boost and 24mb of L3 cache. They both support LPDDR5X memory,
though AMD allows for slightly faster RAM speed.
I’ve got two ASUS Zephyrus G16 gaming laptops to do this testing as fairly as possible.
These laptops are exactly the same with the only difference being the CPUs. They have the same GPU,
same RAM capacity, same cooling, same battery, same everything.
Battery life is an area where AMD laptops typically do better compared to Intel,
and that’s the case here too. Don’t get me wrong, the Intel laptop almost lasted
for 9 hours in our YouTube video playback test, which is a great result for a gaming
laptop. But the AMD version almost lasted for 12 hours, or 35% longer.
Performance while running on battery power is another area where AMD often does better too.
With the chargers connected, the AMD processor was scoring 11% higher in the Cinebench 2024
multicore test. But if we unplug the chargers and run off of battery power instead, the AMD
laptop was still faster than Intel in multi core, though with a slightly smaller 8% lead. Intel
took the lead for single core performance on battery power, but the gap is small.
So not only does the AMD laptop last longer when running on battery power,
but it also performs better when running on battery too.
ASUS’s Armory Crate software gives us the option to control the power limit of both
CPUs. More power equals more performance, but also more heat - and a higher power bill.
We can see how much different power limits matter here, give me a second to explain what’s going
on. The blue line shows Intel’s Core Ultra 9 185H, while the red line shows AMD’s Ryzen
AI 9 HX 370. I’ve tested both processors in 5 watt power increments between 15 and 80 watts,
though the software allowed the Intel laptop to go up to 90 watts.
Basically this shows that AMD is more power efficient at all power levels.
The AMD laptop is able to reach a higher Cinebench Multicore score with less power.
Here are the actual Cinebench scores. So with just a 15 watt TDP set on both laptops,
AMD was scoring 69% higher in multi core performance, nice. Intel needs
a higher 25 watt power limit to score the same as AMD at 15 watts. But then once we
get up to a higher 80 watt power limit, AMD only had an 11% lead. So still a clear win,
but based on this, AMD’s new processor is more power efficient at lower power levels.
Now these bigger 16 inch gaming laptops I’ve tested have no problems running their
CPUs at 80 watts. But smaller and thinner notebooks will have less room for cooling,
which means lower power limits. And ultimately performance comes down to how much power the
laptop is able to feed the processor, which is why I always report it in my laptop reviews.
With that in mind, the rest of the testing has been done at either 35 or 80 watts to
represent lower and higher end laptops. Both CPUs performed very closely in terms
of single core performance, just a slight lead with AMD.
Both laptops were using a similar amount of power when measured at the wall. AMD was a
few watts behind, which isn’t unexpected as Intel and AMD measure TDP differently,
so setting the same values in software isn’t exactly the same.
But these results confirm it’s not too different in terms of real power use.
This gives AMD a better performance per watt result, whether we’re running with a lower
or higher CPU power limit. The AMD laptop is just more efficient in this workload,
as it’s performing better while using less power.
Interestingly the AMD laptop was running hotter despite using less power, but this
isn’t actually a fair comparison. Both processors have their sensors placed in different parts of
the chip and report different things, so this isn’t comparable, but it’s the best we can do.
Actually, maybe this is. The Intel laptop was slightly warmer to the touch in its hot spots
shown in red. So although software tells us AMD is hotter, in the real world the
Intel machine felt hotter on the outside, which is what it really comes down to.
Both laptops have the exact same cooling system inside, and I ran this test with
fans maxed out at the same speed to keep the results consistent and comparable.
Likewise clock speeds aren’t really comparable, but here’s what we’re dealing with. AMD’s lower
and higher powered cores are reaching higher clock speeds than Intel, probably because the
AMD processor has fewer cores to share its power budget with. Intel needs to spread the
same power over more cores, which means lower clocks on average in this multicore workload.
Alright, let’s check out some other applications before we get into the games!
Blender was tested with the Classroom test, and AMD was completing the task 39% faster
than Intel at 35 watts, or 23% faster at 80 watts. So again, there’s a bigger lead for
AMD with less power. Intel catches up a little at 80 watts, but the newer AMD chip has an easy win.
V-Ray and Corona are more rendering workloads,
and like Blender, these saw some of the biggest wins for AMD out of all apps tested.
MATLAB on the other hand was faster with Intel, so if you’re using this
program a lot then Intel’s 185H may make more sense if you’re after the best performance.
I’ve used 7-Zip to test compression and decompression, and this workload ran better
with AMD. With both CPUs running at 80 watts AMD was only 3% faster when it came to compression,
but decompression had a larger 18% lead. But like most other tests,
the gap is wider at 35 watts, with AMD 37% ahead in decompression and 20% ahead in compression.
Crossmark tests a bunch of different things that
they claim represent real world workloads. This includes things like AES encryption,
compression, SQLite database lookups, rendering frames, video tracking,
face recognition and more. Anyway Intel was 24% faster at 35 watts here, or 9% ahead at 80 watts.
AMD was faster when using Handbrake to transcode one of my videos,
completing the task 25% faster at 35 watts, or 7% faster at 80 watts.
Video editing with Adobe Premiere worked better with AMD too, though the gap is
much smaller with the AMD laptop only scoring 2% better at 80 watts,
or 5% better at 35 watts - one of the smallest differences out of all applications tested.
That goes for video editing with DaVinci Resolve too,
at least at 80 watts where AMD only had a subtle lead. But at the lower 35 watt
power limit AMD was scoring 12% higher than Intel. Not a massive lead compared
to some of the other workloads like 3D rendering, but hey, winning’s winning.
Adobe Photoshop tends to perform better in this test with higher single core performance,
and AMD was 12% faster at 35 watts or 7% faster at 80 watts. So again,
not a massive difference, but a clear win for AMD.
Geekbench tests a bunch of different workloads and is one of the few tests
we have that has a single core component. AMD was 10% faster in that regard at both power levels,
with less of a gap in multicore performance when both processors get more power.
AMD ends up almost 17% faster than Intel on average out of the specific
applications I’ve tested when both are power limited to 35 watts. Each bar on
this graph shows how much faster or slower AMD was against Intel,
so Intel really dominated in MATLAB and whatever real world applications Crossmark
claims to be testing. But AMD wins by a fair margin in most tests at lower power levels.
That margin lowers with both processors running at 80 watts, but AMD still won with a 7% lead on
average in the same workloads. Again Intel only was only better in the same tests as before,
but there are more applications that have a smaller difference with the higher power limit.
That’s not too surprising based on the power scaling results from earlier,
as AMD was more power efficient at lower power levels. The performance
gap closes once they’re fed more power.
As for AI, both of these laptops have an NPU,
so dedicated hardware for accelerating AI workloads, with AMD’s being better
according to the spec sheet. But it’s still early days in the AI world, there
just aren’t any real benchmarks and that many real workloads that I can use to compare them.
Alright, but what about gaming? We’ve tested both laptops at 1080p
and 1440p resolutions in 20 games to find out!
And all games on both laptops were tested fresh a few days apart with
the same game updates, same Windows 24H2 updates, latest BIOS, same GPU drivers,
and the same CPU and GPU power limits - so this is as fair as it gets.
Let’s start out with Cyberpunk 2077. I’ve got the 1080p results below and the 1440p results above,
with Intel below AMD at each resolution. The Intel CPU was 8% faster at 1080p,
despite both laptops having the same 1% low performance, and the fact that AMD
was slightly ahead at 1440p. I double and triple checked the results, and they were consistent.
I was very keen to test Red Dead Redemption 2,
because I’ve found this game to perform poorly on gaming laptops with Intel’s
Meteor Lake processors. I’m not sure why, but that was indeed the case here,
with AMD seeing its biggest win out of all 20 games tested, coming in 10% faster at 1440p.
The Rift Breaker was 5% slower with AMD at 1080p,
and AMD was a little slower at 1440p too, but the CPU difference usually matters
less at higher resolutions as we get more GPU bound and the processor starts to matter less.
Baldur’s Gate 3 on the other hand was a clear win for AMD,
reaching a 7% higher average FPS at both resolutions.
Civilization 6 measures turn time instead of FPS,
so lower numbers are better here. AMD was slightly faster at 1440p, but there’s no major difference.
Black Myth Wukong was a little weird. The average FPS was very close at both resolutions,
but we had less stuttering with AMD, which is why its 1% lows were higher than Intel. Now this is
a brand new game, so it’s entirely possible that some upcoming update may change and improve this,
but at the time of testing it was running smoother on the AMD laptop.
Counter-Strike 2 was a little faster with Intel, but the difference really isn’t much. Sure,
if you’re playing competitively you want every frame you can get,
but at the same time, if you’re playing competitively you’re probably looking at
more powerful processors than these ones designed for thinner laptops.
Spider-Man had a bigger lead with the AMD laptop in most cases,
while Microsoft’s flight simulator was a bit faster with Intel. But then other
games like Fortnite saw basically no real difference between the two processors.
Alright, rather than waste your time individually talking through the rest of the 10 games tested,
I’m just going to quickly skip through the results. Feel free to pause the video if you
want a closer look at any of the games tested. It takes a long time to test so many extra titles,
but I think it’s important to use a wide selection of games so we can get an accurate
picture of the average performance differences to make a fairer conclusion. Like I always say,
more data equals more better. Let’s look at those average differences next.
There’s no real difference on average when we consider all 20 games tested at 1080p. In the most
extreme cases, AMD and Intel both had one game with an 8% difference. But once we factor in all
20 games, AMD was just 0.35% faster on average, which is basically nothing. It doesn’t matter.
Interestingly the gap widens a little in favor of AMD at 1440p. It’s not much,
AMD was only 1.6% faster on average here, but it’s still a bit weird because normally the processor
matters less at higher resolutions, as we get more GPU bound. Regardless,
at the end of the day, in most games AMD isn’t that far ahead.
Here’s how frame rates look if we instead take the average of all games at all
resolutions. We’ve got 19 games rather than 20 because we’re talking FPS here,
so I can’t include Civ 6 like before. Anyway, I think this better allows us to visually see
the overall difference in a quick and easy summary, and just like I’ve been
talking about, on average there’s no major difference at all between these processors.
Intel has a subtle edge when it comes to total system latency, which is how long
it takes between clicking the mouse and a gun shot firing in counter strike 2. But again,
the difference is extremely small and within the margin of error range. Ultimately both
processors are responsive when it comes to competitive gaming.
But it’s a different story when running a game only on the integrated graphics.
AMD’s integrated graphics were 70% faster in Cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p high settings.
It’s actually usable with AMD at just under 60 FPS, while Intel was left in the dust.
AMD was ahead in Shadow of the Tomb Raider too, though with a smaller 33% FPS boost over Intel,
but that’s still a much bigger difference than we saw when using the RTX 4070 graphics.
So if you’re considering these processors in a smaller and thinner laptop that does
not have powerful discrete graphics and you still want to do some gaming,
then the AMD option is going to perform a lot better.
But what about the price difference? Pricing and availability will change over time,
so check the links below the video for updates and current sales. And if gaming
laptops with either of these processors do go on sale, we’ll be sure to add them to
our gaminglaptop.deals website. We update that every day to include all of the latest sales,
so make sure that you check it out with that link below to save money on your next gaming laptop.
At the time of recording, the AMD version of ASUS’s Zephyrus G16 with RTX 4070 graphics
goes for $2300 USD. While the older Intel version with half the RAM goes for $2000.
Unfortunately the Intel version in the US only has 16 gigs of memory,
unlike the one I tested which has 32 to match the AMD laptop.
So although my comparison here was fair as both of these laptops have 32 gigs of RAM,
if you’re in the US the Intel version is only available with 16,
unless you step up to the more powerful RTX 4080 graphics. So that’s worth factoring
in when considering that AMD costs $300 more, it does also have double the RAM.
The Intel laptop costs less at full price,
but with some of the previous sales we’ve had on the gaminglaptop.deals site,
it’s been far far cheaper. The AMD model on the other hand hasn’t seen any sales just yet,
because it only just came out, whereas the Intel model has been out for around 8 months now.
Intel is able to offer better value from a cost per frame perspective, even if we don’t
include its best case $1400 sale, which makes it even better value compared to the AMD model.
Basically because the FPS in games was about the same once we take the average of all our games,
whichever laptop is cheaper would win in terms of value, and right now that’s Intel.
Outside of gaming, Intel was also offering better value in terms of Cinebench 2024
multicore score. Yeah, AMD was performing 11-12% faster than Intel in this workload,
but at a minimum it also costs 15% more money without a sale, so it’s slightly
worse value in that regard. At least until we start seeing some discounts on the AMD model.
Honestly, in terms of gaming performance, it doesn’t seem to matter whether you go
Intel or AMD between these two processors. You could just get whichever is cheaper and
have a great time playing. That said, some games do have a clear bias for Intel while
others have a clear bias for AMD. So maybe if you’re playing one of those games that
did significantly better on one or the other then it might make sense to prioritize that.
But once we average a bunch of games together the difference between both is very minor.
The real reason to consider the AMD chip instead of Intel are the better battery life,
and better performance in non-gaming workloads, especially rendering tasks where Zen 5 had some
big leads. Or if you need more powerful integrated graphics, which will be more
important in thinner and lighter laptops that don’t have powerful discrete graphics.
And AMD was especially good at lower power levels compared to Intel, so again another good reason to
pick AMD if you’re going for one of those thinner laptops that will have a lower power limit.
So yeah, overall AMD is better, which isn’t too surprising considering their
Zen 5 architecture came out almost a year after Intel’s Meteor Lake.
Intel’s newer Lunar Lake was just announced, which I thought was meant to replace Meteor
Lake. But it maxes out with just 4P cores, 4E cores, and 8 threads,
so I don’t think it’s going to be competitive if you’re after multicore performance.
But based on some early tests that I’ve seen, it’s starting to look like Intel’s new Lunar Lake has
higher single core performance and better integrated graphics than AMD. But at least
one large brand has told me that they don’t plan on putting Lunar Lake CPUs into gaming laptops,
and gaming laptops is primarily what we cover on this channel. But yeah,
if you are considering one of those smaller and lighter laptops then you’ll definitely want
to check Lunar Lake benchmarks once that’s released and see how it compares with AMD.
Now there’s way more to consider when buying a new laptop than just the CPU that’s inside
of it. Take the ASUS Zephyrus G16 for example, I think it’s a pretty great gaming laptop, but it
does have some pretty major flaws that you need to be aware of. So check out my full review over here
next where I’ve tested absolutely everything in-depth. I’ll see you over in that one!
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
Prosesor Intel Core Ultra 200V Lebih Irit dari Snapdragon, Gaming Lebih Kencang dari AMD? Caranya?
Intel vs AMD Laptops in 2024 - What a Mess...
Asus Zenbook S14 with Intel Lunar Lake (review) - two steps forward, one step back!
The Truth about Snapdragon X Laptops… Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite Review
'라이젠 + Windows11' 이 조합.. 게임 끝입니다! [Windows 11 x AMD Ryzen AI]
%90 Olumlu Yorum Alan Laptop HP Victus 16 İncelemesi
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)