The Intel Core Ultra 7 CPU Isn't Even a Year Old, but It's Already at a Record Low for Memorial Day Weekend
Save $135 on the 20-core Intel Core Ultra 7 CPU for your gaming PC.
AAA video games have gotten crazy. The map for Grand Theft Auto 6 set to release next year is approximately two and a half times larger than the explorable area of Grand Theft Auto 5. You can see lights in the environment reflecting off the sweat on characters bodies while they're muscles twist and stretch as they move they way it would for a real person. Whether these result in a game being more 'fun,' is debatable, but what isn't up for discussion is just how much more processing power in needed to play the latest titles in their highest quality. If you haven't upgraded some of your gaming PC parts in awhile, it may be time to replace some stuff.
See at Amazon
Intel refreshes its CPUs on annual basis and the Intel Core Ultra 7 processor came out last year. Since it's release, it's steadily come down in price, but has just now gotten it's biggest drop yet. Originally priced at around $400, it has since been cut down by 33%. That amounts to a savings of $135, marking it down to just $269—it's lowest price ever.
'Do More With Less'
Intel boasts the Intel Core Ultra 7 CPU will improve both performance and efficiency, allowing your PC to run cool, quiet, and fast, delivering up to 5.5GHz. It's contains 20 cores (eight P-cores plus 12 E-cores) along with 20 threads. You'll be able to have better gaming experience while using less power. In other words, 'do more with less.'
Play all the latest big-budget video games with hyper realistic graphics and crazy good frame rates. And if you stream to Twitch or YouTube, you don't want your performance to suffer while taking on the extra task. You want ultra-smooth and responsive gameplay for both you and your viewers to experience, and Intel is here to help.
A solid processor like this isn't just good for gaming. If you find yourself regularly using the Adobe suite of apps, you'll find reliable performance with the Intel Core Ultra 7. Efficiently touch up photos or create massive designs in Photoshop without slowdown, render videos fast when working with Adobe Premiere, and much more.
For better or for worse, AI is becoming is huge demand in the tech space. Intel promises it's Intel Core Ultra processor is ready to take on not just your gaming and streaming.
The Intel Core Ultra 7 processor is designed for legendary gaming experiences but is capable of even more than that. And right now, Amazon reduced it by a third of its price. Order it today for just $269.
See at Amazon
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Geek Tyrant
25 minutes ago
- Geek Tyrant
THUNDERBOLTS* Concept Art Offers Alternate Versions of Red Guardian's Suit — GeekTyrant
New concept art for Marvel Studios' Thunderbolts* has surfaced, giving fans a glimpse at a grittier, more tactical take on David Harbour's Red Guardian. Shared by concept artist Aleksi Briclot on Instagram, the design veers away from the bold, comic-inspired look we saw in Black Widow and leans into something a bit more covert. 'I went for a darker vibe,' Briclot explained, showcasing a suit that ditches the bright reds for a muted black with subtle crimson accents. Even the signature chest star goes full black, adding to the stealthy tone. It's a sharp contrast to the bulkier, more traditional version Red Guardian ultimately wears in the film. Briclot described his approach, saying the goal was 'less Santa Claus' and more 'Spec Ops.' It's easy to see how this iteration would've suited a darker, more grounded tone for the team-up film—one that feels more Mission: Impossible than Avengers. While the final costume stuck closer to Harbour's original look from Black Widow , it's fun to imagine what might've been if the creative team had opted for something a little more shadow ops.
Digital Trends
27 minutes ago
- Digital Trends
You Asked: ULED vs QLED explained, plus AI videos with sound are here
On today's episode of You Asked: Is the TCL QM6K too bright? How should you balance upscaling between your Apple TV 4K and 4K TV? And what you need to know about Google Veo 3 and its AI video creation. Apple TV 4K vs Panasonic Smart TV Upscaling @_Jiggle asks: If I were to get a Panasonic Z95A with incredible upscaling, but I don't like the operating system, Fire TV, so instead get the Apple TV 4K, is the upscaling any good or should I stick with the TV's Smart OS Fire TV? Does the upscaling change in any way if I get an Apple TV over Panasonic's incredible upscaling? There are layers to this one, but I'll try to answer the question in parts and keep it simple. As always, I encourage viewers to weigh in on these questions too—especially if these are issues that you've faced and can help with. So, Jiggle, the first thing to know is the Apple TV 4K is going to upscale the content to whatever you have set in the format section of the settings. If you have it set to 4K, it's going to take whatever you're watching, upscale it to 4K, and then send that to your Panasonic TV. The good news is, yes, the Apple TV 4K upscaling is pretty good. And if you're that bothered by Fire TV, it's a solid option. I haven't tested how good the Apple TV upscaling is versus using the apps built into the TV, but if it's well-produced content—which most current movies and shows on the big streaming services are—you probably won't be able to tell the difference. That said, if you go that route, be sure to go into your Apple TV 4K settings and select Match Content Range and Frame Rate. This ensures that the Apple device won't upscale SDR content into HDR and give you a weird, fake HDR-looking image. It keeps things natural to how the content was created. It's not recommended, but if you wanted your TV to do more of the upscaling to 4K, you could set the output on your Apple TV 4K to match the content. So, for example, set the output to 1080p if you're watching 1080p content and then let the TV take it up to 4K. But that feels like too much work for minimal benefit. And there's a chance you may be doing more harm than good by limiting the Apple TV's upscaling. ULED vs QLED: What's the Difference? @phalisatumblin1249 asks: What is the difference between ULED and QLED? Great question—and one that, though we've probably answered before, deserves an explanation every now and then. At its most simple definition, the difference between ULED and QLED is… kind of marketing. QLED—Quantum Dot Light Emitting Diode—is a type of LED panel that uses quantum dots to enhance color and contrast. And here's where marketing and a bit of confusing tech comes in. If you let Hisense define ULED (since it's their proprietary technology), it's described as a panel equipped with Ultra Local Dimming, Ultra Wide Color Gamut, Ultra 4K Resolution, and Ultra Smooth Rate. Given it's '20 picture patents working together to optimize backlight, motion and color data for the best viewing experience,' yes, it's a step up from your average LED-backlit TV. Where things get confusing is that there's not really a clear, super-distinguishable difference like there is between other TV types. There's not a specific piece of hardware—like a unique panel type or backlight—that definitively qualifies a TV as being ULED. It's just Hisense's branding to set themselves apart. If you're in the market for a TV and see QLED and ULED come up, dig into multiple reviews from trusted sources to ensure you're getting accurate information about the technology used. TCL QM6K vs Sony X90L Nikhil Subash asks: Recently, I was interested in the TCL C6K/QM6K series based on your recommendations. However, during a visit to a local store (here in Dubai), the model wasn't yet available. Instead, the salesperson strongly recommended the Sony Bravia X90L, praising its color accuracy and picture quality. While I've owned a Bravia before (which unfortunately developed issues after 3 years, with costly repairs), I'm hesitant due to the high price. The salesperson also raised concerns about TCL and Hisense, particularly regarding high brightness and potential eye strain for children. As a parent of a 3-year-old who enjoys watching YouTube, this gave me pause. Which model would be the better choice for 2025 considering durability, eye comfort, and value? Are there any upcoming releases in the next two months worth waiting for? Thanks, Nikhil. To address the eye comfort issue—first, I am not a doctor. That is clear. However, I have a degree in journalism and spent more than 10 years reporting. I know how to do research with credible sources, which tell me that it's more the amount of time spent in front of the TV than the TV picture itself that can cause eye strain. Though none of us who spend long amounts of time in front of screens for work follow this advice, it's recommended to take 15-minute breaks every two hours. Take your eyes off the screen. Focus on something else in the distance. So do with that what you will in terms of eye comfort for you and your three-year-old. I'll also note that in the tests we did on this channel—results you can see in each of these TVs' reviews—the Sony X90L's peak brightness is around the same and often higher than the TCL QM6K. I wouldn't recommend maxing out the brightness on either if eye comfort is a concern. In SDR, peak brightness in a 10 percent window was just shy of 600 nits on the Sony and around 650 nits on the TCL. In HDR, the Sony hits 1600 nits in smaller windows and 800 nits with full-screen white. The TCL returned 750 nits in a 25 percent window, which would be even lower in full-screen white. So I wouldn't worry about the TCL being too bright. Finally, in terms of color, the X90L was very accurate out of the box—as you'd expect from a Sony TV. But to quote the reviewer, the TCL was one of the most color-accurate TVs tested at its price point, which, by the way, retails for $200 less than the Sony—at least here in the U.S. Bottom line: if the TCL QM6K has your eye, you won't be disappointed, especially considering the performance for the price. Google Veo 3: AI Video with Sound and Speech Moving on from TVs, let's cross the pond to managing editor John McCann to answer your AI-related questions around Google Veo 3. Google announced the latest version of its AI video generator during its I/O keynote in the middle of May. And with Veo 3, we get a major upgrade. It's moving out of the silent age of film and into the audio era. Now it's not only able to generate eerily convincing video, it will also add sound effects, background audio, and even speech to those videos. Yes, your AI-generated moving pictures can now talk—and in a variety of accents. Has it nailed the British one? Not quite, in the view of this particular Brit. There's still a bit more work for Google to do. However, what it is able to do is already impressive, and we've shared some of these examples on our social feeds, which has really got you talking. David wants to know how to access Veo 3, while Tuhin asks if there's a cost involved. Well, David, it's no surprise you want to try it. Veo 3 is a very interesting engine with a lot of possibilities. However, getting to use it is a little trickier. First of all, you have to be in the U.S. Veo 3 isn't available in other countries at the moment. And you'll also need a subscription to Google's AI Ultra Plan. How much is that? $250 per month. That is a lot of money, and means not many of us will be rushing to try it out right away. Eddie asks: Is this attached to Google Gemini? Yes, it is. If you're able to spring for $250 a month, you'll be able to access Veo 3 via the Gemini app. You'll also be able to experience Flow 4, a filmmaking service from Google that uses both Veo 3 and image generation. You'll even be able to pull from your own image and video sources to create a film-style video, with additional controls like camera angles and editing tools.
Forbes
28 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Role Of Leaders When AI Can Know Everything
As much as AI can do and will do, there is something it cannot do that remains a crucial role for ... More leaders—and it's not what we think. When personal computers went mainstream in the 1980's, a euphoria around what they could do was met by contrarians pointing out their limitations. Sure, they could do analytical tasks better than humans, but not intuitive, strategic tasks, such as playing chess. And then computers were built to become chess champions. Yes, they could reason faster than humans but not coordinate movement tasks. And then computers were built into deft manufacturing robots and human prosthetics. Sure, they could do what humans programmed them to do, but they couldn't outlearn their programming. And then AI shredded that assumption. As ChatGPT burst onto the scene, a similar euphoria erupted around what it could do, again followed by contrarians pointing out limitations. Sure, it could learn and regurgitate case law faster than a human, but it also made up cases. Then AI was improved to show sources. Yes, AI can write content better than many people and faster than all, but it's wreaking havoc with publishing and educational practices. Then AI was developed to detect AI-developed content. And so on. We have decades of experience telling us that the edges we suppose to machine intelligence are but the starting point for the next X-prize. And so it is now as we witness the explosive use of AI in good hands and bad—arguably even its own hands—with command of knowledge and networked effects we cannot even imagine. It is with full recognition of this history of underestimating what machines can do that I suggest there is yet something AI cannot do, no matter how much it knows nor how powerful it becomes. And that is to be a living antenna and transformer for sensing and manifesting futures in which life flourishes. This is the crucial and uniquely human role for leaders when AI can know everything. It is an energetic or spiritual role: to sense the zeitgeist, the field, the emerging future, the collective unconscious, God-Source, the Way, or universal Mind—however we name it—and from this place of resonant connection, through collaboration and using all tools available, including AI, conduct that future into the present. I'm certainly not alone in suggesting there's a quality of human intelligence that supersedes AI, nor that AI could be mighty dangerous in the wrong hands or in charge of itself. The earliest pioneers in machine intelligence, such as Marvin Minskey saw risk, not in whether such intelligence could be achieved, but in having no way to ensure it would act in our best interests. The Australian Risk Policy Institute, part of a global risk advisory network, argues for the importance of AI augmenting human intelligence, not replacing it. Numerous tech companies have been party to AI pledges promising responsible and ethical AI development and use. And dominant players, such as Google, have also walked away from those pledges or subjugated them to a winner-take-all race to dominate the AI industry. Mo Gawdat, a former AI leader at Google, in a mind-bending interview on Diary of a CEO, sees the biggest threat facing humanity today is humanity in the age of the machines, with all of our ignorance, greed and competition. 'This is an arms race,' Gawdat says, with 'no interest in what the average human gets out of it…every line of code being written in AI today is to beat the other guy.' AI is an exponential amplifier of the mindset with which it's being created, trained and deployed. As covered in Closing The Great Divides, when that mindset is based in dualism, that is, separation within oneself, self from others or self from the environment, it propagates that separation and resultant suffering in what it creates. For example, it will create businesses that exploit the environment, social systems that create big winners and many losers, or economic policies whereby the rich get vastly richer. Add to this the amplification of AI and the effects are so extreme that it gives even the tech titans pause to ponder the ethics of it all. While dualism is the norm in our culture (in which AI has been created) and embedded in our subject-object language (on which AI has been trained), it is not the greatest truth for the human being. Human leaders are capable of a kind of merge or flow state that goes by many descriptions: unity consciousness, interbeing, samadhi, mystical union, being one-with, or simply being the whole picture. This one-withness is the essence of Zen Leadership. When leaders operate from this state of connection, they propagate a sense of care for the whole, for example, in businesses that take care of the environment, social systems that help people thrive, or economic policies that respect limits. Such leaders create flourishing futures. So, while there are many areas in which AI will far exceed human capacity, it is poorly equipped to sense connection at the depth available to a human being. Moreover, this isn't just another limit that will be superseded by the next generation of AI. Machine intelligence itself grew out of living in our heads—disconnected from the wisdom of the body—and equating intelligence with our thoughts, as in Descartes' dictum: 'I think therefore I am.' We failed to realize that the very thoughts 'I' thinks and the language it uses to express them is how 'I' keeps its ego-centric game going. Modeling computers and AI on how we think and talk propagated this mindset of separation, first replicating the mind's left-brain logic, then advancing to more holistic pattern recognition associated with the right brain. By contrast, the human being has a very different origin. We come from one living cell, through which the entire evolutionary journey played out in our development from gilled sea-creatures to lunged air-breathers. We embody antenna for a whole spectrum of consciousness whereby the universe has revealed itself to itself from the beginning of life, from five basic senses to thought consciousness, to ego consciousness, to collective consciousness. In the collective field, we are able to sense the energy of relationships, of opportunities in crises, of ideas not yet taken form, which is the playground from which skillful leaders bring an emerging future into the present. While AI can reproduce the veneer of human experience—even vastly accelerate and improve upon some aspects of it—it has not lived those experiences. Just as reading the Adventures of Tom Sawyer is not the same as being Tom Sawyer, AI's training in the language of human experience is not the same as living those experiences. Even though AI can talk a good game about being one-with by regurgitating things it has read, it has no physical basis for experiencing one-withness. It lacks the antenna. AI may have sensors or network connections to feed its semiconductors, silicon wafers, transistors, software and so forth. But it does not vibrate or resonate with the field the way a human body does. It does not have the complexity or fractal quality of life and hence cannot support the same expansive consciousness. Opinions vary in the field as to whether AI has consciousness (or 'interiority') at all. But even if we grant that everything has consciousness commensurate with its complexity, AI is far less complex than a human being. That said, AI is already superior to humans at knowing what there is to know. It has thoroughly commoditized knowledge; being the 'smartest person in the room' is no longer a necessary or useful role for human leaders. Far more useful and necessary are practices for connection, which are part of contemplative, embodied wisdom traditions, as in Zen Leadership, for literally resonating one-with others, one-with the environment, one-with the emerging future. Through our connected selves, we bridge AI knowledge and universal wisdom. For sure, such bridging will not be the main AI narrative anytime soon. AI development and use is likely to be dominated by the billionaire footrace we see now, with even shadier characters at the margins and AI itself in the not-too-distant future. But wise, connected AI development and use can serve as a vein of gold through the detritus of disruption and destruction of coming years, manifesting the priceless role of humanity in the evolution of consciousness. AI can only serve a flourishing future for life if it is helped along by living beings connected with same purpose. It is the essential, human leadership opportunity in an era when AI can know and do most everything else. As Mo Gawdat concludes, there are several inevitables with AI. (1) AI will happen, (2) AI will be smarter than us, and (3) AI will replace many of our jobs. But what he also concludes is that it's smarter to create from a place of abundance rather than scarcity, which is another way of saying create from a place of infinitely resourced connection rather than the scarcity of a separate self. That is the most important role a leader can play, and we are living at a most pivotal time in which to play it.
