AMD Ryzen 9000 Series: A Game-Changer for Content Creation and Video Editing

AMD Ryzen 9000 Content Creation Review

This minimal generational improvement also largely doesn't move the needle for those choosing between AMD Ryzen and Intel Core. If AMD was better with Ryzen 7000, they are still going to be the better choice with Ryzen 9000. Similarly, if Intel Core 14th Gen was the better option before, that will almost always still hold true with Ryzen 9000 as well. Following some launch delays, AMD has now released their entire AMD Ryzen 9000 Series of processors. These CPUs are based on AMD's new Zen 5 CPU architecture, which promises increased IPC (Instructions Per Clock) and improved efficiency -- in addition to better memory support. These CPUs are compatible with existing AM5 Motherboards (e.g., X670E), which support DDR5 and PCI-e 5.0, although there are also updated X870 boards that should be available later this year. Our first article on the Ryzen 9000 Series processors, looking exclusively at the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 6 9600X, found that the CPUs were 5-10% faster on average than their Ryzen 7000 counterparts, while drawing about 40 W less power in all-core workloads. This performance wasn't evenly distributed, though, with some workflows seeing no benefit and others seeing (at the top end) a 15% improvement. Although we expect a similar uplift for the Ryzen 9 9900X, the Ryzen 9 9950X is unique because it did not see a reduction in TDP. It may be the case that the added efficiency from Zen 5 will allow the 9950X to see much higher performance at the same power draw as the 7950X. Below, we have listed the most relevant CPU specifications from AMD and Intel. For more information, visit Intel Ark or AMD's Ryzen page. Overall, there are relatively few changes between Ryzen 7000 and Ryzen 9000 in terms of base specifications. Core count and cache are identical, and base and maximum frequencies are very similar. Some key differences are that the 9000-series processors support higher maximum memory frequencies (5600 Mbps vs. the Ryzen 7000's 5200 Mbps), have lower TDP (and measured wattage), and feature some additional capabilities, such as native AVX512 support. One interesting caveat is that, in a 4-DIMM configuration, the Ryzen 9000 series processors downclock memory to the same 3600 Mbps as the Ryzen 7000 series processors, so the increased RAM speed support is only if you are using two sticks. The new processors look to be very efficient compared to previous Ryzen chips and Intel's similarly-placed CPUs, although we will note that AMD's published TDP numbers can be misleading as they do not reflect real-world power draw (which is why we are also listing the max power draw we recorded). Figuring out how much a CPU should cost -- especially for AMD CPUs -- has historically been very difficult due to frequent sales combined with occasional supply issues and MSRP adjustments. Due to this, we have included both the listed MSRPs for all CPUs and the 6-month average sales price on Newegg / Amazon. It is typically the case that AMD has much larger sales than Intel, which means that, although the MSRP shift seems large from Ryzen 7000 to Ryzen 9000, the change in actual cost to an average buyer is relatively small. Even though the new Ryzen CPUs have a lower MSRP than the previous generation, due to the almost constant sales and deals for the Ryzen 7000 processors, the new 9000-series are likely to be more expensive than the average price of the CPUs they are replacing. Most likely, the average end-user cost for Ryzen 9000 will come down over time, but at the moment, they will likely be anywhere from $60-130 more. To investigate the performance of the new AMD Ryzen 9000 processors, we tested them against the equivalent 14th gen Intel Core processor and the last-gen AMD Ryzen 7000-Series processors. If you are interested in how the 9000-series compares to even older Ryzen CPUs, we will be going even further back and looking at the Ryzen 9 5950X and Ryzen 9 3950X in our forthcoming AMD Ryzen 9000 Series vs. Previous Generations article. As recent events with the Intel 13/14th Gen have shown, the power settings used when running a processor can significantly affect performance, stability, and longevity. Because we do our performance testing through the lens of a workstation system integrator, we tend to prioritize the latter two over the former; this means that we disable overclocking and ensure that processors are run in line with manufacturer specifications. We have done a lot of testing to ensure that this has only a minimal impact on overall performance, but it does mean that our performance numbers do not always wholly align with other reviewers. For clarity, when testing AMD processors, we disable ASUS' Medium Load Boostit, AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive, and run our memory at the maximum-supported JEDEC frequency and timings. For our Intel platforms, we disable ASUS' Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE) and Intel's Adaptive Boost Technology (ABT), limit PL1 to 125 W, PL2 to 253 W, set Tau to 56 s, set ICCMax to 307 A, and run the memory at the maximum-supported JEDEC frequency and timings. For more information about the performance considerations of some of these settings, see our articles on how power settings affect performance in Content Creation workloads for AMD Ryzen 9000 (upcoming) and Intel 14th Gen. As is typical, our benchmarks consist of a mix of various industry-standard benchmarks, including our own PugetBench for Photoshop, Premiere Pro, After Effects, and DaVinci Resolve. We also test with third-party benchmarks such as Cinebench 2024, V-Ray, and Blender. These give us targeted, real-world performance numbers for a variety of content creation applications and help inform us about the components' performance in other uses. The first benchmark we want to take a look at is Adobe Photoshop, which is unique compared to most of the other applications we are testing in that it is very lightly threaded. In fact, it is to the point that the lower core count models from AMD often end up performing better than the higher core count ones, even though on paper, the 9900X and 9950X should have the same, or higher, maximum turbo frequency as the 9970X and 9960X. What that means is that if performance in Photoshop is your primary concern, the relatively affordable AMD Ryzen 7 9700X is currently the fastest CPU available, beating the more expensive Ryzen 9 9900X and 9950X (and Intel's top-end Core i9 14900K) by just over 10%. If Photoshop is more of a secondary application in your workflow, a Ryzen 9 or Intel Core CPU may still be the better choice, but for Photoshop alone, the 9700X is king. In terms of AMD vs Intel, AMD Ryzen 9000 should give you more performance, and at a lower TDP (power draw and heat output). This is especially true with the Ryzen 5/7 models, with the Ryzen 5 9600X out-performing the Intel Core i5 14600K by a massive 28%, and the Ryzen 7 9700X beating the Intel Core i7 14700K by 19%. At the top-end, the Ryzen 9 9900X is about on par with the Intel Core i9 14900K, although its lower price and TDP give AMD the lead there as well. The 9950X is the only somewhat exception, as even though it is 5% faster than Intel's 14900K, it also carries a $60 higher MSRP. Full performance analysis: Adobe Photoshop: AMD Ryzen 9000 Series vs Intel Core 14th Gen Moving on to Adobe Premiere Pro, we see that the new Ryzen 9000 CPUs are effectively identical to the previous generation Ryzen 7000. Because of this, AMD makes up no ground against the competition, allowing Intel to maintain their lead in this segment. AMD technically has an overall win with the Ryzen 5 9600X beating the Intel Core i5 14600K by 10%, but this is an area where the overall score doesn't tell the whole story. Namely, that when working with LongGOP codecs like H.264 and HEVC, the 14600K scores 10% higher than the 9600X. Unfortunately for AMD, that is also the most likely type of workflow used at this budget level, where screen recordings and phone footage are common. Very few at this level will be working with RAW codecs or heavy enough intraframe workflows where the 9600X could show a benefit. Because of this, in spite of AMD having the higher overall score, the Intel Core i5 14600K is most likely the better option for most users. Beyond the 9600X, Intel has a solid lead over AMD, consistently scoring about 10% higher overall. The biggest thing holding AMD back is the fact that Intel processors with Quick Sync (used for hardware-accelerated decoding of H.264 and HEVC codecs) perform significantly better for the most common workflows at this budget level. A "proper" workflow when working with H.264/HEVC media from screen or phone recordings may be to transcode or use proxies, but it is incredibly common for users to work with this type of footage natively, and Intel is simply the better option for that. The exact difference varies based on the specific codec, task, and processor you are looking at, but Intel is, in general, 10-30% faster and can be close to 2x the performance in specific cases. When working with RAW codecs, performance can occasionally be important at the Core i9 and Ryzen 9 levels, but even there, AMD only achieves performance parity with Intel. If all you do is work with RAW media, then you could go either way, but unless you are working on high-end productions (in which case, you should be using AMD Threadripper or Threadripper Pro), you are also going to be regularly working with H.264/HEVC media as well - even if it is just for the occasional bit of stock, b-roll, or drone footage. Full performance analysis: Adobe Premiere Pro: AMD Ryzen 9000 Series vs Intel Core 14th Gen After Effects shows more of a generational improvement with the new Ryzen 9000 processors than Premiere Pro, but they are still only slightly faster, mostly showing about a 5% performance uplift. Even with that minor uplift, that is enough to put AMD Ryzen firmly in front of Intel Core at the lower end, with the Ryzen 5 9600X beating the Core i5 14600K by 16%, and the Ryzen 7 9700X beating the Core i7 14700K by 8%. However, Intel and AMD are much closer for those looking for the absolute best performance in After Effects. Intel actually has a slight performance lead over the Ryzen 9 9900X, with the Core i9 14900K performing 6% faster. That isn't much in the real world, and you may still opt to go with AMD for the $90 lower MSRP. The Ryzen 9 9950X does better in terms of performance, but since After Effects isn't particularly well threaded in most cases, it is only on par with the Core i9 14900K, even though it has a $60 higher MSRP. Full performance analysis: Adobe After Effects: AMD Ryzen 9000 Series vs Intel Core 14th Gen Moving on to DaVinci Resolve Studio, the Ryzen 9000 processors are not significantly faster than the previous generation Ryzen 7000. Our results are a bit different this time around compared to previous testing we have done, but that is largely due to changes in our DaVinci Resolve benchmark (which added additional codecs and tests for the new AI-based features in Resolve) rather than any gen-over-gen improvements made by AMD. Starting at the lower end, AMD has a pretty sizable advantage over Intel with both the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X. In both cases, AMD is around 10-20% faster when working with RAW and intraframe codecs, as well as when using the newer AI-based features in Resolve. Intel does have a lead for LongGOP codecs like H.264 and HEVC, although as we went into in more detail in our full performance analysis, this is entirely due to Intel's terrific performance with HEVC 4:2:2 10-bit, which only Intel has hardware decoding support for. For that specific codec, Intel is often more than 2x the performance of AMD. At the high end, Intel and AMD are more on par, but we would give the Core i9 14900K the win for most users. Intel is faster in general, with only the 9950X taking the lead for RAW codecs. Both Ryzen 9 CPUs are faster for the AI-based workloads in Resolve, but getting the best performance for the new AI features isn't something that seems to be a priority for most quite yet, so unless you plan on working with a lot of RAW media and are willing to invest in the Ryzen 9 9950X, the Core i9 14900K is probably the better pick. Full performance analysis: DaVinci Resolve Studio: AMD Ryzen 9000 Series vs Intel Core 14th Gen Our CPU Unreal Engine benchmarks represent a variety of workflows that may be done on the CPU, but in many ways, they are somewhat of a "synthetic" benchmark for CPUs of this caliber. Although most users will need to compile shaders at some point in time, Light Baking is increasingly being discarded in favor of GPU-based solutions or Unreal's Lumen. Similarly, while compiling Unreal Engine is a CPU-based task, it will frequently be pushed to a larger build server rather than be run on individual workstations. Due to some hardware and software issues, full results are still coming, although we did explore the results for individual tests we do have in the full analysis article linked below. However, for Unreal Engine users, the new Ryzen 9000 series doesn't offer a significant performance boost over the 7000 series. The main improvement is that the lower-end CPUs now deliver similar performance with reduced power consumption. Therefore, upgrading from a 7000 series CPU isn't something we would recommend. If you're using an older platform, either series could be a good choice, depending on the price at the time. When compared to Intel, the 9950X and 9900X are both very close to the 14900K, making the system price the big differentiation. For those on a tighter budget, the lower-end 9700X and 9600X struggle to keep up with the 14700K and 14600K, respectively. We only have comparisons for these lower-end CPUs in shader compile at the moment, so it is possible, though unlikely, that our views could change when we are able to gather the full testing results for these processors. Full performance analysis: Unreal Engine: AMD Ryzen 9000 Series vs Intel Core 14th Gen When it comes to rendering, the Ryzen 9000 processors extend the lead held by the previous generation. We see the biggest improvements in V-Ray, with anywhere from 10-20% higher scores. That puts the Ryzen 9 9950X a full 36% faster than the Intel 14900K in V-Ray, 30% in Blender, and 18% in Cinebench. Meanwhile, the 9900K bests Intel by 10% in V-Ray, but has equal performance in Blender and Cinebench, all while being less expensive. However, the lower tier 9700X and 9600X cannot keep up with Intel's 14700K and 14600K, respectively. Budget shoppers will be well suited with one of Intel's Core offerings. While not specifically rendering, we can also look at Cinebench single-core to get a sense of modeling and animating workflow performance. Here, AMD's new CPUs are just as fast as Intel's 14900K. If someone is looking for a CPU to pair with a GPU renderer, any of these CPUs would be a great choice. Full performance analysis: CPU Rendering: AMD Ryzen 9000 Series vs Intel Core 14th Gen Reality Capture is an application where processing times of several hours are common. Fortunately for users, recent updates have improved support for CPUs with high core counts. As a result, the new Ryzen 9 9950X outperforms all other CPUs in its class, completing our test suite 30% faster than the 14900K. Further down the lineup, AMD and Intel are closely matched, with the 9900X trailing the 14900K by just a few percent while offering lower price and power consumption, making it the better choice. However, the 9700X and 9600X struggle to compete with Intel's alternatives. On the budget side, Intel continues to excel with the Core i5 14600K and i7 14700K. Full performance analysis: Reality Capture: AMD Ryzen 9000 Series vs Intel Core 14th Gen Overall, the new AMD Ryzen 9000 Series Processors are a bit of a mixed bag. In many workflows, they perform effectively the same as the previous generation (albeit at a lower TDP in many cases), while in others they are significantly faster. The architectural differences of this generation are primarily relevant in modern, optimized applications, which, combined with stagnation in power draw (not necessarily a bad thing) and frequency, reduce the scope of performance improvements. Starting with photo and video editing, Photoshop is one area where AMD has a solid lead over Intel, with the new Ryzen 9000 processors beating the equivalent Intel Core CPUs by about 10%. That lead evaporates for Premiere Pro, and Intel is actually the much better choice for most workflows at this budget level. After Effects and DaVinci Resolve are more mixed, with the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X doing very well, outperforming Intel by 10-20%. On the other hand, Intel takes the lead at the top end, with the Core i9 14900K matching or beating the Ryzen 9 9900X and 9950X in most workloads. For Unreal Engine we don't see much of a change from the Ryzen 7000 processors. Our final analysis is still in the works due to some issues in the testing, but for the results we do have, this new generation doesn't offer much performance gains. That said, the better power efficiency is welcome, but it just isn't enough to warrant an upgrade from the last generation. As for Rendering, AMD continues to offer the best option at this budget level. The Ryzen 9 9950X is a powerhouse when it comes to rendering, and V-Ray, in particular, saw a large gain with this CPU. Even in cases like Cinebench, where there was little difference, it still offers more performance than Intel. However, on the lower end, everything flips, and the new 9970X and 9960X can't keep up with similarly priced Intel CPUs. Lastly, in Reality Capture, the results are much like those in rendering. The top-end 9950X takes a commanding lead over both the Ryzen 7950X and Intel 14900K. Some subtasks are stronger than others, but on average, Ryzen 9 is a strong option here. On the lower end, AMD just cannot compete, and Intel Core is the best option for those looking for a budget option for scans with a few images. In many ways, the Ryzen 9000 series of CPUs feels more like a mid-generation refresh (in the same vein as Intel 14th Gen) than a new entry into the Ryzen lineup. Although they are certainly very competent CPUs, with impressively low power draw in all-core workloads, AMD has delivered incredible performance gains each generation since Ryzen 1000 up until now. Certain applications benefit from the generational improvements, especially some of the renderers we tested and those with heavy AVX512 usage. But many applications don't. Most end users will want to sit this generation out unless (or until) prices drop and bring the Ryzen 9000 chips into line with Ryzen 7000. If you need a powerful workstation to tackle the applications we've tested, the Puget Systems workstations on our solutions page are tailored to excel in various software packages. If you prefer to take a more hands-on approach, our custom configuration page helps you to configure a workstation that matches your exact needs. Otherwise, if you would like more guidance in configuring a workstation that aligns with your unique workflow, our knowledgeable technology consultants are here to lend their expertise.

DaVinci Resolve Studio: AMD Ryzen 9000 Series vs Intel Core 14th Gen

At the high end, Intel and AMD are more on par, but most users will likely choose the Intel Core i9 14900K. Intel is faster in general, consistently scoring 10-20% higher in most of our tests. However, the Ryzen 9 9950X is 12% faster for RAW codecs, and both Ryzen 9 CPUs are a bit faster for the AI-based workloads in Resolve. AMD recently launched its new Ryzen 9000 Series processors, which are a fairly minor refresh to its existing Ryzen 7000 processors. Utilizing the same AM5 socket and compatible with existing X670 motherboards, Ryzen 9000 is based on AMD's new Zen 5 CPU architecture, which promises increased IPC (Instructions Per Clock), improved efficiency, and better memory support. In this article, we will examine how these new processors perform specifically in Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve Studio. Before going too far, we do want to point out that this is the first detailed CPU testing with the latest "1.0" version of our PugetBench for DaVinci Resolve benchmark. This new version features a completely overhauled test suite with a greatly expanded set of codecs and GPU-based OpenFX tests. In addition, based on the work BlackMagic has been doing to integrate AI into DaVinci Resolve, we added a whole suite of tests looking at the various AI features in Resolve, including Super Scale, Face Refinement, Magic Mask, Video Stabilization, Smart Reframe, and more! Between the new AMD Ryzen 9000 CPUs and the updates to our benchmarks, we are very curious to see how AMD and Intel compare in DaVinci Resolve Studio compared to the previous testing done in our DaVinci Resolve Studio: Intel Core 14th Gen vs AMD Ryzen 7000 article. In the past, Intel has held a small lead, but the difference was small enough that almost any gen-over-gen performance gains from AMD should close the gap. Because we will be examining so many CPUs, we will divide our analysis into Intel vs. AMD (AMD Ryzen 9000 vs. Intel Core 14th Gen) and performance versus the previous generation (AMD Ryzen 9000 vs. AMD Ryzen 7000). If you want to read more about the new AMD Ryzen 9000 CPUs and what separates them from the previous generation, we recommend checking out our main AMD Ryzen 9000 Series Content Creation Review article. That post includes more detailed information on the CPU specifications, MSRP, and an overview of testing results for a range of other applications, including Premiere Pro, DaVinci Resolve, After Effects, Unreal Engine, Cinema 4D, Blender, and V-Ray. We design our benchmarks to cover many workflows and tasks to provide a balanced look at the application and its hardware interactions. However, many users have more specialized workflows. Recognizing this, we like to provide individual results for benchmarks as well. If a specific area comprises most of your work, examining those results will give a more accurate understanding of the performance disparities between components. If you look at our previous consumer-level DaVinci Resolve CPU article (DaVinci Resolve Studio: Intel Core 14th Gen vs AMD Ryzen 7000), the AMD vs Intel story is a little different this time around. However, most of the change appears to be from the updates we made in our benchmark to bring it up to speed with modern workflows in DaVinci Resolve. Interestingly, there wasn't much of a performance improvement with the new Ryzen 9000 CPUs compared to the previous generation, although we will get more into that in the next section. Comparing Intel and AMD CPU models directly is a bit tough since they do not carry matching MSRP. The closest matches are: We do want to point out that in these comparisons, AMD is a bit less expensive than Intel in terms of price, other than the 9950X vs 14900K. They also have a lower power draw, meaning less heat output and noise. Because of that, if things are close, AMD actually has the advantage. Starting at the bottom of the stack, the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X performs well compared to the Intel Core i5 14600K, with about a 10% performance lead. However, the 14600K is faster in some workloads, namely when working with LongGOP codecs like H.264 and HEVC where the 14600K is 20% faster than the 9600X. The 9600X is impressively faster for intraframe codecs like ProRes and DNx, as well as for RAW codecs like RED, but it is rare that anyone will be considering a Ryzen 5 or Core i5 CPU for that type of workflow. Because of this, the majority of users looking for a CPU at this budget level may actually be better off with the Core i5 14600K even though the 9600X scored higher in our benchmark overall. Moving up a step to the Ryzen 7 9700X, Intel takes a small overall lead with the Core i7 14700K scoring about 4% higher overall. Once again, working with LongGOP is Intel's strength, and for that, the 14700K is 15% faster than AMD. It is worth pointing out that Intel's lead here (and with all the Intel Core CPU models) is almost entirely when working with HEVC 4:2:2 10-bit media, for which only Intel has hardware decoding support. The 14700K is more than 2x as fast as the 9700X for this specific type of codec, but AMD and Intel are basically on par for the other types of H.264/HEVC codecs we test. On the other hand, the Ryzen 7 9700X is about 10% faster than Intel when working with intraframe and RAW codecs, as well as with the new AI-based features. Going up to the Ryzen 9 models, the Intel Core i9 14900K scored about the same overall as both the Ryzen 9 9900X and 9950X. However, like the other CPU comparisons, the faster processor comes down to the specific workload you are looking at. Intel is actually faster in general (including for Intraframe codecs this time around), although the 9950X is faster for RAW codecs, and both Ryzen 9 CPUs are faster for the AI-based features in Resolve. Overall, choosing between AMD Ryzen 9000 and Intel Core 14th Gen for DaVinci Resolve Studio comes down to your budget and workflow. At the ~$400 MSRP level and below, AMD has the performance advantage almost everywhere except when working with HEVC 4:2:2 10-bit media. On the other hand, the Intel Core i9 14900K is faster in most cases than the 9900X, and the 9950X only has a decent advantage with RAW media. When comparing the new AMD Ryzen 9000 Series to the previous Ryzen 7000 Series, be aware that AMD technically introduced a small price drop with the new CPUs. However, since AMD CPUs are often on sale, the new models will actually be a bit more expensive in most cases. That should even out over time as the Ryzen 9000 CPUs eventually go on sale, but for now, Ryzen 9000 will likely have a small price premium over the older 7000 models. Rather than going through each model one by one, we are simply going to state that the gen-over-gen performance uplift is incredibly minor in DaVinci Resolve Studio. Some specific tests showed a greater improvement, but overall, the difference between Ryzen 7000 and Ryzen 9000 is within the margin of error for this type of real-world testing (about 3-5%). Overall, AMD's new Ryzen 9000 Series Processors do fine in DaVinci Resolve Studio, but they are not significantly faster than the previous generation's Ryzen 7000 CPUs. Our conclusions are a bit different this time around compared to previous testing we have done, but that is largely due to changes in our DaVinci Resolve benchmark rather than any gen-over-gen improvements made by AMD. While there certainly is no reason to upgrade an existing Ryzen 7000 system to one of the new 9000 CPUs, there is still the question of whether you should go with AMD Ryzen or Intel Core if you are purchasing a new system. Unfortunately, unlike many of our other Ryzen 9000 articles, the answer is a bit more complex for DaVinci Resolve. It changes depending on exactly what CPU you are looking at, and what your workflow is. Starting at the lower end, AMD has a pretty sizable advantage over Intel with both the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X. In both cases, AMD is around 10-20% faster when working with RAW and intraframe codecs, as well as when using the newer AI-based features in Resolve. They are also on par with most longGOP (H.264/HEVC) codecs with the exception being HEVC 4:2:2 10-bit, which only Intel has hardware decoding support for. For that specific codec, Intel is often more than 2x the performance of AMD. At the high end, however, Intel and AMD are more on par, but we would give the Core i9 14900K the win for most users. Intel is faster in general, although the 9950X is faster for RAW codecs, and both Ryzen 9 CPUs are faster for the AI-based workloads in Resolve. Getting the best performance for the new AI features isn't something that seems to be a priority for most quite yet, so unless you plan on working with a lot of RAW media and are willing to invest in the Ryzen 9 9950X, the Core i9 14900K is probably the better pick. Every application uniquely utilizes hardware, so our results here don't necessarily translate to any other application. Our focus in this article centers specifically on AMD Ryzen 9000 Series performance in DaVinci Resolve Studio. However, we recommend checking out our AMD Ryzen 9000 Series Content Creation Review article, which includes a broad overview of results for several different applications. If you use other software packages, it also has links to our in-depth testing articles for content creation: Photoshop, Premiere Pro, After Effects, Unreal Engine, Cinema 4D, Blender, and V-Ray. Finding the perfect workstation doesn't have to be complicated. Explore our solutions page for a curated selection of recommended systems for a multitude of applications and workflows, or visit our custom configuration page if you already know the ideal hardware for your needs. If you need assistance with tailoring a system to a unique workflow or have any other questions, we encourage you to reach out to our dedicated technology consultants.