Too bad that there isn't much of an improvement.

There's something odd with the fresh install.

ScrizzThere's something odd with the fresh install.

Yes, this is exactly why I used 23H2 in my review and the thing that Intel has fixed with the PPM update

At this point I'm feeling kind of sorry for Intel. Arrow lake seemed like such a nice upgrade in theory, but even with all these fixes it seems very meh in reality. The good thing is poor people like my can keep old processors longer without feeling left so far behind.

So.. Ram latency didn't change either?

On one hand we have GPU division of this company and on the other is this idiotic CPU division.

In the Asus Forum are some posts regarding these issues:
rog-forum.asus.com/t5/intel-800-series/arrowlake-resources/td-p/1051570/page/14

The way I read Intels comments you need this ME version, which hasn't been released AFAIK.
"Intel CSME Firmware Kit 19.0.0.1854v2.2 (or newer)."

Also note the v2.2 at end.

Ed_1The way I read Intels comments you need this ME version, which hasn't been released AFAIK.
"Intel CSME Firmware Kit 19.0.0.1854v2.2 (or newer)."

Also note the v2.2 at end.

That's what I've noticed as well. In the download ME_Intel_v19.0.0.1854.zip I can't find a hint to v2.2.
So the versions seem to make only marginal to zero differences.
I wonder how the motherboard manufacturers view this as they are suffering.

So it's the best 24H2 , i.e. optimizations could (or not) improve performance beyond 23H2.

@btarunr any difference regarding consumption? Thanks.

would really love to know the exact sales figures for these CPUs

Oh dear. I just imagine a scenario where the engineers are like "yeah, this is not going to go well" and the management moves forward with "Engineering said 'going to go well' so I don't understand why the numbers are bad. We're investigating a fix".

The new microcode was touted as bringing in performance gains to gaming workloads across the board, with Intel saying that depending on the configuration...

Did Intel really say that? Or was that yet another rumor that got spread because Intel?

What about how it compares to the 13900k? I'm still rocking a good binned one so I don't want to upgrade because it'd be a waste of money.

truehighroller1What about how it compares to the 13900k? I'm still rocking a good binned one so I don't want to upgrade because it'd be a waste of money.

13900K = 14900K

They're identical products, it's just that Intel felt comfortable enough with the process node to officially certify higher clocks, which turned out to be a terrible idea anyway.



If you really want to be generous, deduct 1.4% from the 14900K's score to give you the 13900K's score - but that really is the best-case scenario for the 14900K in an artificially-contrived 4090@720p resolution, done that way solely to rule out the GPU bottleneck that is practically guaranteed to be your real limitation.

At a sane resolution, the scores are the same, and if there's any difference between the two chips it's more likely down to the BIOS and BIOS settings of the motherboard in question, since power limits are such a huge issue for Intel 13th/14th gen.

Intel should just scrap it. Get back to it's roots. Reminds me of the days Ahtlon 64 was kicking intels butt left right and center in 2005 days. Then after a whole year the first Core 2 Duo came out it ran only at 1.833 Ghz and outperformed every Athlon X2 64 on the market even running at 3.2 ghz. Heck I still have a Core 2 Quad around here somewhere. But that was intel at it's best they got back to there root did a complete redesign of there cpus and came out with something amazing. Then the Core i Series came out and for a better part of 10 years but now it basicly needs to come to an end. Intel really needs to drop the Core i series and come out with something new a cool new name of a series and a whole new way of doing things. In the Desktop market I think they need to drop these E cores and I cores BS. They need a pure 16 core and they could do it too some of the newer Xeons have some awesome cpus. Hopefully Intel will do something amazing again next year. But for now it's back to the same ole as they were in 2005.

I still am running a Core i9 9900 KF which too this day still has some of the highest IPC values for a single thread on the market. Perfect example of Intel at it's best.

ChaitanyaOn one hand we have GPU division of this company and on the other is this idiotic CPU division.

Intel/AMD, Ying/Yang.

LycanwolfenIntel should just scrap it. Get back to it's roots. Reminds me of the days Ahtlon 64 was kicking intels butt left right and center in 2005 days. Then after a whole year the first Core 2 Duo came out it ran only at 1.833 Ghz and outperformed every Athlon X2 64 on the market even running at 3.2 ghz. Heck I still have a Core 2 Quad around here somewhere. But that was intel at it's best they got back to there root did a complete redesign of there cpus and came out with something amazing. Then the Core i Series came out and for a better part of 10 years but now it basicly needs to come to an end. Intel really needs to drop the Core i series and come out with something new a cool new name of a series and a whole new way of doing things. In the Desktop market I think they need to drop these E cores and I cores BS. They need a pure 16 core and they could do it too some of the newer Xeons have some awesome cpus. Hopefully Intel will do something amazing again next year. But for now it's back to the same ole as they were in 2005.

I still am running a Core i9 9900 KF which too this day still has some of the highest IPC values for a single thread on the market. Perfect example of Intel at it's best.

I know someone who runs a school's PC inventory and there is not one AMD machine in sight. Doesn't matter if Intel CPUs were good or bad, he has no ideia and he always bought Intel.

Same for buying prebuilts. Some companies will take some time to switch, even if they are faster than less technical users. If the price to performance is ok, there is a 11400F to be sold. Doesn't matter if enthusiasts don't care. 12400F, 12700F, that is also listed right now.
Heck, when Prescott was around, there were metric tons of them solds that were blowing up motherboards in a very short time. They still kept selling, then Pentium Ds and eventually they got their act together later.

So, when you have something like Arrow Lake, it is still quite a good CPU. In most situations it is very good but for gaming it is not so. Well, if you consider software needs to keep up - like what just happened with Cyberpunk patches - there is good potential there.
Arrow Lake is very good for multitasking and it keeps scaling if you give it more power - that is a very good place for Intel to be.

On the other hand, people need to understand that when the Ryzen 1600/2600 was out it was not a good gaming CPU. The 7700K was a 4core part that was substantially faster and more expensive (70% more). After two-three years - not more - software started adapting and you would have spent more money to get less performance on the newer titles. (this you can still verify by reading old and later ones)

Even if enthusiasts don't like ARL, programmers now have a competitive CPU with AMD, that makes development faster for them. So when they start optimizing tomorrow's games, they will be running on ARL. Games will run faster on ARL, possibly being slower on 12-14th than they would otherwise be if these chips had similar characteristics.