Wednesday, March 6th 2024
Intel Core i9-14900KS Reportedly Launches Next Week
Intel is reportedly launching its new enthusiast-segment desktop processor, the Core i9-14900KS, on March 14, 2024. The i9-14900KS is marked by Intel as a Special Edition product, meaning that it may not be available in all the markets that you'd otherwise find the regular i9-14900K in; and the processor has higher system- and cooling requirements to achieve its advertised performance levels. Given that Intel priced the previous generation i9-13900KS and i9-12900KS at $740, we don't expect pricing of the i9-14900KS to be any different.
The i9-14900KS is based on the same "Raptor Lake Refresh" silicon as the i9-14900K, but from better bins. It should come with higher overclocking headroom, and better performance out of the box. This is because Intel has dialed up the maximum boost frequencies by 100-200 MHz on both the P-cores and E-cores. The P-cores now boost up to 6.20 GHz using the Thermal Velocity Boost algorithm, whereas the i9-14900K boosts up to 6.00 GHz. With its launch just over a week away, retail boxes of the i9-14900KS are already beginning to leak from sources among brick-and-mortar retailers. Once such source in Vietnam grabbed these snaps of the processor box.
Sources:
VideoCardz, I Leak VN (Twitter)
The i9-14900KS is based on the same "Raptor Lake Refresh" silicon as the i9-14900K, but from better bins. It should come with higher overclocking headroom, and better performance out of the box. This is because Intel has dialed up the maximum boost frequencies by 100-200 MHz on both the P-cores and E-cores. The P-cores now boost up to 6.20 GHz using the Thermal Velocity Boost algorithm, whereas the i9-14900K boosts up to 6.00 GHz. With its launch just over a week away, retail boxes of the i9-14900KS are already beginning to leak from sources among brick-and-mortar retailers. Once such source in Vietnam grabbed these snaps of the processor box.
46 Comments on Intel Core i9-14900KS Reportedly Launches Next Week
I hope someone actually tests this but its' highly unlikely, remove power limits and loop cinebench is the usual testing that goes around.
I wish I still had my 13900k just to compare with the 14ks, I think the efficiency gains would be insane. A generational jump even
www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-vs-intel-core-i9-13900k
Winner: AMD
Intel has made plenty of progress, but AMD still holds the crown of the most power-efficient chips. Not only do they suck less peak power, but they also accomplish more work per unit of power consumed. That results in an overall win in power consumption, efficiency, and thermal output, so you'll end up with a cooler and quieter system.
If you strictly want to compare out of the box, then got some news for you, intel has non k and t cpus that demolish everything amd has in efficiency out of the box. Just don't go there.
AMD has non X cpus too. At lower power AMD demolishes Raptor Lake. Power limit your 14900 to 35W and do the same for 7950X and the AMD is 2x as fast!
There is a thread somehwere in the forum, we tested it. Intel > everything in efficiency.
These are the actual numbers, and as you can see, the performance / watt difference is within single digits - and that's on the only segment that AMD actually leads. In every other segment it's a disaster
We also have TPUs own review which shows that a 14900k @ 200w is more efficient than the 7950x, and at 125w it's more efficient than the 7950x 3d. You want me to link it or you know it already and you pretend otherwise?
EG1. Ok, your numbers are from this review. pokde.net/review/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-review
Right under the graph you pulled the reviewer himself says that the AMD part was drawing a ton more power, namely at the 105w mode it was drawing 142 watts!!! But you decided to hide that information. Very dishonest behavior, you need to stop it, you might lead someone into buying the wrong product with your misinformation. It's not nice dude, STOP it.
The fact still remains, the Intel CPU is less efficient, as again proven by the graph you provided. Not even reviewers on prominent websites are as deluded as you, and are honest enough to admit, Intel does not offer the most efficient CPUs in the PC consumer space.
We get you have some weird fetish for intel, but spending all the time and energy in the world to move goal posts (14900KS, the original discussion, is not made, binned, designed or whatever weird justification you want to make, to run at 10w and 2ghz for the sake of “efficiency”) will not change the objective fact.
Efficiency has to be measured at ISO power. That doesn't just apply to CPUs, it applies to EVERY product. You cannot compare 2 products without normalizing for something. Think about fan reviews. If they just put every fan at 100% and then compare performance then their results would be just useless. In fact, the Phanteks T30, the best fans currently in existence would be at the bottom if they tested fans like that. But instead reviewers test fans at ISO db. Same with cars, yes X car running at 50kmh is more efficient than Y car running at 200kmh, that's some captain obvious stuff, the question is which one is more efficient when both are running at the same speed.
Saying that X cpu at 50w is more efficient than Y cpu at 300 watts is useless information, cause no matter what CPU I buy i'm going to be running it at the same power. And when you do run cpus at same power Intel is vastly more efficient in most segments. That's just a fact.
Now if your argument is that the K series of CPUs are inefficient compared to amd with both out of the box, I'm fully in agreement with you. But that's just a useless metric to be winning at, cause the K lineup aren't even made to be efficient out of the box. If you care about efficiency and want to run out of the box, non K and T lineup from Intel is lightyears (and im not even exaggerating) ahead of whatever amd has to offer.
Maybe wizzard needs to do a comprehensive comparison to shut this silly discussion up with good data, here's a silly example though:
The 14900k @35W is more efficient than a stock 7800x3d, raise the power to just 65W and it looses. And that's with the 7800x3d at stock. The 7950x3d is bellow both of them, but again at stock, you could easily limit it's power (and disable half the cpu) for class leading efficiency. But again why would you? Did you spend more than 600$ on a top CPU to run it at 35W?
But seriously, I don't care about this, whatever some Intel cpus are more efficient, doesn't change the 14900ks being a stupid product that's being run way past diminishing returns to fight back AMD.
And to answer your question yes, 99% of the time my CPU is running below 35w because it's an Intel, and thank the gods it doesn't need up to 45 watts just to browse the web like the competing products.The only reason it's stupid is the price. Obviously it's not worth 150€ over the normal 14900k. But nobody is looking for value at such high end products anyways, for my personal usecase it's worth the extra money for the efficiency increase. I like to run as quietly as possible with as low power draw as possible. The 14900ks due to excellent binning is going to achieve that
It's not a bad chip, but it's not an efficiency king by any reasonable metricMost people don't even know there's a setting for that, but ok you're just delusional, got it.