Intel Core i7-14700K has an 8P+12E Core Configuration

[wheresmycar]

Last I checked the world doesn't revolve around gamers

Source?

(lol)

Nah, i'm just tired of seeing Intel going nuts over core counts and completely destroying the once treasured performance tiers. At the cost of inefficiency and power guzzling, and the core-voluminous tax on top. Obviously for some odd reason some will show signs of resentment, but there is absolutely no harm in suggesting non-E variants at a competitive price alongside the BIG.little subgroup minority feeder.

Unless 14th Gen picks up some solid points in the efficiency/PowC dept and we're not tied into scheduling misadventures, we got something worth shouting about. Otherwise, so far not impressed!

So much complaints about e-cores I don't get why there aren't more complaints about duel chiplet Ryzens having the 2nd gimped chiplet instead of a separate sku that features two perfect chiplets.

Oooh can't be bothered with doubled up CCDs either. Heat hoggers!

TBF, for me the preferred CPU must check all the following boxes: competitive perf with the top dogs (doesn't have to be the best), courteous efficiency/low power power consumption, easy to cool and reasonably priced. For me thats normally the i5/r5 or i7/r7 segment. I'm a simple man with simple desires and when things get out of shape it doesn't wash well with me.

AMDs not in the clear either... the slow boots, SOC hi's, XMP/EXPO playing up, user-input in some cases being a requirement to touch on advanced configs (although i dont mind) and on top the slow take off thanks to AMDs silly higher AM5 premium.

I was meaning to swap from intel to AM5 and sadly even the slow boots was enough to steer me away (for now). I'm open to either camp if they get the full package on point.

 

[JustBenching]

Source?

(lol)

Nah, i'm just tired of seeing Intel going nuts over core counts and completely destroying the once treasured performance tiers. At the cost of inefficiency and power guzzling, and the core-voluminous tax on top. Obviously for some odd reason some will show signs of resentment, but there is absolutely no harm in suggesting non-E variants at a competitive price alongside the BIG.little subgroup minority feeder.

Unless 14th Gen picks up some solid points in the efficiency/PowC dept and we're not tied into scheduling misadventures, we got something worth shouting about. Otherwise, so far not impressed!

All Intel cpus are insanely efficient actually, I don't really understand what you actually want. Limit them to 125-180-250w or whatever else you fancy and they are incredibly fast. In both multi and especially in lightly threaded tasks (which is the majority of workloads) they are insanely efficient, way better than amd's zen 4.

It's only in games that they are not efficient, but that's only compared to the 3d chips.

 

[chrcoluk]

Guessing the per core gains are funded by the new integrated voltage controller gains, and of course multi core gets a bigger boost with the extra e-cores which I am sure will make the marketing team proud.

But yeah, if this comes out with no higher power footprint its a nice improvement, thats what I am waiting for, is this free performance, or need even more cooling and power.

My 13700k I am planning to use e-cores mostly for running svchost and other background tasks, in that respect, 8 or 12 of them doesnt matter. I dont do software encoding anymore which they would have helped on (due to energy costs). But others might appreciate this bump in e-cores.

 

[wheresmycar]

All Intel cpus are insanely efficient actually,

It's only in games that they are not efficient

yep only interested in gaming efficiency and power consumption

Although i wouldn't suggest "insanely efficient" in other workloads, not by any stretch

 

[AusWolf]

Source?

(lol)

Nah, i'm just tired of seeing Intel going nuts over core counts and completely destroying the once treasured performance tiers. At the cost of inefficiency and power guzzling, and the core-voluminous tax on top. Obviously for some odd reason some will show signs of resentment, but there is absolutely no harm in suggesting non-E variants at a competitive price alongside the BIG.little subgroup minority feeder.

Unless 14th Gen picks up some solid points in the efficiency/PowC dept and we're not tied into scheduling misadventures, we got something worth shouting about. Otherwise, so far not impressed!

That's only because they're behind TSMC and Samsung in the node wars. The only way they can keep up is with a million E-cores clocked out of the sky.

Oooh can't be bothered with doubled up CCDs either. Heat hoggers!

TBF, for me the preferred CPU must check all the following boxes: competitive perf with the top dogs (doesn't have to be the best), courteous efficiency/low power power consumption, easy to cool and reasonably priced. For me thats normally the i5/r5 or i7/r7 segment. I'm a simple man with simple desires and when things get out of shape it doesn't wash well with me.

AMDs not in the clear either... the slow boots, SOC hi's, XMP/EXPO playing up, user-input in some cases being a requirement to touch on advanced configs (although i dont mind) and on top the slow take off thanks to AMDs silly higher AM5 premium.

I was meaning to swap from intel to AM5 and sadly even the slow boots was enough to steer me away (for now). I'm open to either camp if they get the full package on point.

There's no more slow boot on current BIOSes, and non-X chips are very easy to cool. I wholeheartedly recommend picking up a 7700 non-X with some up-to 6000 MHz EXPO RAM. You'll have an Intel-like experience.

 

[A Computer Guy]

There's no more slow boot on current BIOSes, and non-X chips are very easy to cool. I wholeheartedly recommend picking up a 7700 non-X with some up-to 6000 MHz EXPO RAM. You'll have an Intel-like experience.

What part of the Intel like experience exactly? (sorry just a bit confused )

 

[AusWolf]

What part of the Intel like experience exactly? (sorry just a bit confused )

The part where you put your system together, install Windows and forget about it. (except for the chipset driver)

 

[A Computer Guy]

The part where you put your system together, install Windows and forget about it. (except for the chipset driver)

Thanks!

 

[Gica]

This is similar to the 8th and 9th gen Coffee Lake transition where Intel was stuck with nothing new and just enabled hyper threading throughout the range.

So Intel is stuck again and just enabling more E cores on lower SKUs. Its the exact same chip as Raptor Lake. That means no change to IPC and Core i9 parts will only have slight core and memory clock speed increases.

The only change from past behavior is maintaining pin compatibility of the socket unlike the skylake/kaby lake to coffee lake/coffee lake refresh 1151 debacle.

The EXACT same thing could be accomplished if Intel just lowered 13th gen prices and made the 13900KS more widely available. But nope they want yearly model number changes to push/trick people into upgrading.

I guess you were super excited by ryzen 2000, which only brought extra frequency.
At Intel, it's bad. Only AMD is good.
Let me enlighten you: it's all I can do on this manufacturing node and it looks good. A significant boost in multitasking and intensive applications.
And the 13900K was available starting October 20, 2022. The refresh comes a year later and maintains compatibility with LGA 1700. Only an amd fan can see something wrong with this new release.

 

[R0H1T]

Ryzen 2xxx also brough slightly better memory, better cache & marginally higher IPC ~ it's what zen was originally supposed to be launched as but they couldn't wait anymore!

Only an amd fan can see something wrong with this new release.

It's good for Intel, good for competition, good for existing Intel users blah blah blah ~ wake me up when you have to change mobos next year

 

[JustBenching]

Although i wouldn't suggest "insanely efficient" in other workloads, not by any stretch

Then it's obvious you haven't tried them.

Here is a video review, just take a look

wake me up when you have to change mobos next year

You HAVE to? What happens if you don't?

 

[R0H1T]

I mean Intel's requiring a new mobo roughly every 2-3 years like clockwork for the last 15+ years IIRC so why not, we can always dream right?

 

[Deleted member 232534]

Then it's obvious you haven't tried them.

Here is a video review, just take a look

You HAVE to? What happens if you don't?

a review before the premiere of non-x chips 7700,7900 to put it mildly. 10 days before premiere Some reviewers could look the most efficient settings of the chips months earlier

Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz

Intel Raptor Lake im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz / Leistungsaufnahme in Anwendungen ab Werk / Der Verbrauch steigt

www-computerbase-de.translate.goog

 

[JustBenching]

a review before the premiere of non-x chips 7700,7900 to put it mildly. 10 days before premiere Some reviewers could look the most efficient settings of the chips months earlier

Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz

Intel Raptor Lake im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz / Leistungsaufnahme in Anwendungen ab Werk / Der Verbrauch steigt

www-computerbase-de.translate.goog

View attachment 304466

You could argue the same about intel chips, they also have the t and the non k versions. By far the most efficient cpus on planet earth.

I don't know why you keep arguing about it, the i7 slam dunks the r7 in efficiency at same wattage, the gap is literally insanely huge.

Even the link you just posted prove it lol

 

[R0H1T]

I see you still haven't given up on making up your own facts

 

[JustBenching]

I see you still haven't given up on making up your own facts

My own facts? The numbers HE posted from pcgh, did you check them? The 7700x at stock 142w is Slower than the 13600k at 125w. So it consumes more while simultaneously being slower.

Also the 13700k at 88w is faster than the 7700x at 142w....but yeap, my own facts... Damn, amd fans cannot be reasoned with

Also, according to the same graph, the 13900k at 45w is the most efficient cpu on the planet. Rofl

 

[R0H1T]

Why are you picking 7700x at 142W you know full well it can be TDP limited as well, don't you? It's roughly 2-4% more performant at 65W limits!

And before you go ~ but but but Intel's TDP is a hard limit, that's not true! I don't have a desktop chip at hand but I can get TGL-H draw more than its PL1 limit.

 

[JustBenching]

Why are you picking 7700x at 142W you know full well it can be TDP limited as well, don't you? It's roughly 2-4% more performant at 65W limits!

And before you go ~ but but but Intel's TDP is a hard limit, that's not true! I don't have a desktop chip at hand but I can get TGL-H draw more than its PL1 limit.

Because if the 7700x at 142w is slower than the 13600k at 125w then it will be even slower when you reduce the power limit. You cannot escape the fact that both the 13600k and rhe 13700k are much more efficient.

Intel's pl2 IS in fact the hard limit.

I don't understand why you are contesting this. It's a no brained that the 7700x is atrocious in efficiency. A 12900k, which is basically a worse 13700k, scores 24k at 125w. The 7700x can get nowhere near that number even if you push 500w into it. It's extremely inefficient.

 

[R0H1T]

Ok so you said extremely inefficient do you have numbers to prove it? You said Intel PL2 is also a hard limit ~ where's the power consumption numbers in that chart? I'm not talking about setting that thing in BIOS but actual numbers like ~

We've been over this so many times, are you a fan of this guy as well

 

[JustBenching]

Ok so you said extremely inefficient do you have numbers to prove it? You said Intel PL2 is also a hard limit ~ where's the power consumption numbers in that chart? I'm not talking about setting that thing in BIOS but actual numbers like ~

We've been over this so many times, are you a fan of this guy as well

The pcgh numbers our friend provided proved it. Are you suggesting pcghs numbers are wrong? Cause it's quite clear from their numbers that the 7700x is pretty bad in Mt efficiency. Even hwunboxeds testing shows that the 7700x has the same mt efficiency as a 12700. That's a 2 year old cpu man.

Pl2 numbers are a hard limit. You can easily test it, just go to your bios and set whatever pl2 you like. The cpu will never, ever, ever, no matter what pull more power than the pl2 number you've set.

We don't need to be arguing about it. If you have a 7700x we can test it. Pick the mt benchmark of your choice, pick whatever wattage you think the 7700x does well at, and show me your numbers. I'll show you mine with my 12900k, which is basically a worse 13700k. The gap will be huge. Just do it

 

[R0H1T]

They've set the TDP limits for both Intel & AMD, there's no power consumption numbers in there, I'd suggest taking another look back. In case you missed it you can also go through hundreds of other posts over this 3-6 months back.

 

[JustBenching]

They've set the TDP limits for both Intel & AMD, there's no power consumption numbers in there, I'd suggest taking another look back. In case you missed it you can also go through hundreds of other posts over this 3-6 months back.

Then why is it linked as proof for amds efficiency?? Now that it proves the 7700x is not actually efficient, there is a problem with the graph? Lol

Anyways, we don't need to be arguing about it, if you have the 7700x we can test it. Pick the mt benchmark of your choice, pick whatever wattage you want and post your numbers. I'll do the same on my 12900k, which is a worse 13700k. There will be a gap as big as the Atlantic Ocean. It will take you like 5 minutes to test it.

 

[R0H1T]

I didn't link it but it does give an indication of the performance at various "TDP" levels. For actual numbers you can see TPU reviews, but even they're limited to Cinebench.

Now that it proves the 7700x is not actually efficient, there is a problem with the graph? Lol

There you go again, off the deep end

 

[JustBenching]

I didn't link it but it does give an indication of the performance at various "TDP" levels. For actual numbers you can see TPU reviews, but even they're limited to Cinebench.


There you go again, off the deep end

As ive asked repeatedly, we can test it. Same wattage, same mt benchmark. But nobody dares to be honest, they wanna keep claiming how efficient amd is, even though it isn't. So yeah, I'm wasting my time. Test it or stop arguing

 

[R0H1T]

Well I don't have the chips you're looking for, so you can keep that dishonest tag to yourself

As for testing the 12900k if you can (re)enable AVX512 why don't you do that & test the max power consumption while setting the TDP at say 65W or whatever the BIOS allows, or is that way too honest for you?