Intel Core i5-14600K

[tpa-pr]

Blablabla, just post your run, the 14600k will poop all over a 7700 at same power.

Hi,

I thought this was getting a bit silly, so here are the numbers from my 7700X. At ~106W (based on HWiNFO) I got 1135 multi-core and 120 single-core in Cinebench 2024. My CPU is set to a -25 PBO offset and temp capped at 85C on air. This was run yesterday.

Not sure if it's what you're looking for but I hope it helps.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

Look here: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/...er-lake-tested-at-various-power-limits/2.html
You can go from 241W all the way to 100W and only lose 15%. Not dramatic at all, considering the TDP is more than halved. For 4k gaming you lose practically nothing.

That mean I can apply the same thing with my 7700 and expect a 15-20% loss in performance by cutting the power usage in half to 32.5w TDP / 45-50w PPT?

If that's the case, then we are still at the massive difference in power usage between those CPUs.

 

[JustBenching]

Hi,

I thought this was getting a bit silly, so here are the numbers from my 7700X. At ~106W (based on HWiNFO) I got 1135 multi-core and 120 single-core in Cinebench 2024. My CPU is set to a -25 PBO offset and temp capped at 85C on air. This was run yesterday.

Not sure if it's what you're looking for but I hope it helps.

Sure thanks, but try to leave stock voltage. If we get into undervolting intel will have a much bigger advantage.

That mean I can apply the same thing with my 7700 and expect a 15-20% loss in performance by cutting the power usage in half to 32.5w?

If that's the case, then we are still at the massive difference in power usage between those CPUs.

No you can't, cause amd has the IO die that draws 20w on its own. When your cpu is at 80w, the cores draw 60. If you limit it to 40w now your cores have only 20 to work with. So by limiting power to half your cores only have 1/3 available.

The Uncore part of the intel cpus draw less than 5w instead of 20, so the cpus perform much better at lower power limits

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

My point still stand that capping the 14900K to 80w that is the same power usage as the 7800X3D have, will massively reduce the gaming performance on the 14900K CPU as shown by 'der8auer'. The same will happen if you cap the 14600K in the same way on the same power usage level as the 7700 AMD CPU. And the 14600K at 65w (same as the 7700) power limit will absolutely not have the same performance as the 14900K at 80w limited power usage either. It will be much lower in performance here)

Here is the picture that shows how much performance you lose in a game by lowering the power usage on a 14900K to the same power usage as the 7800X3D CPU have.

Heck, even the 7700 here would demolish the 14900K at 80w power limit on a WHOLE new level and gain way more FPS here. The 7800X3D is only 0.9% better in program performance over the 7700. The 7800X3D is 13.7% better in gaming performance at 1440p and only 5.3% better in gaming performance at 4K over the 7700 CPU. So, the 7700 CPU is about the same in gaming performance as the 7950X3D. So you can then use the 7950X3D as a reference to the 7700 in gaming performance in the chart over from 'der8auer'.

Here is 2 pictures that shows that the 7700 is on par with the 7950X3D in gaming performance under 1440p and 4K.

So in gaming, Intel stands no chance against AMD here. It's not even close. So why in the world would I buy a 14th Gen Intel CPU / 14600K CPU in a Mini-ITX case just to be forced to limit it's power because the low-profile CPU cooler can't handle it and massively reduce it's performance just to lose massively in gaming against a 7700 CPU from AMD?

 

[tpa-pr]

Sure thanks, but try to leave stock voltage. If we get into undervolting intel will have a much bigger advantage.


No you can't, cause amd has the IO die that draws 20w on its own. When your cpu is at 80w, the cores draw 60. If you limit it to 40w now your cores have only 20 to work with. So by limiting power to half your cores only have 1/3 available.

The Uncore part of the intel cpus draw less than 5w instead of 20, so the cpus perform much better at lower power limits

Here you go, freshly run at stock settings:

I don't actually have a dog in this fight, I was just annoyed because you kept asking for numbers and weren't getting given any so I thought I'd chip in. Hope this also helps.

 

[bug]

That mean I can apply the same thing with my 7700 and expect a 15-20% loss in performance by cutting the power usage in half to 32.5w TDP / 45-50w PPT?

If that's the case, then we are still at the massive difference in power usage between those CPUs.

Why would it? Architectures are different, what kind of logic are you using?

But, in general, limiting TDP only lowers performance for tasks that were already spiking above the new limit. Everything else will see zero impact. (It's really a bit more complicated that that, but that's the gist of it.)

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

Why would it? Architectures are different, what kind of logic are you using?

But, in general, limiting TDP only lowers performance for tasks that were already spiking above the new limit. Everything else will see zero impact. (It's really a bit more complicated that that, but that's the gist of it.)

Look up my last post over about the gaming performances. My point still stand that limiting the power usage on the 14th Gen Intel CPUs to AMD's counter parts will massively reduce the gaming performance on them to the point that it will be completely pointless buying them if you are going to use them in a Mini-ITX case. Because using them in Mini-ITX cases forces you to limit the 14th Gen Intel CPU power usage A LOT, because any 'low-profile' CPU cooler wont be able to handle the power those 14th Gen Intel CPU poshes out. So the CPU will just throttle a whole lot then and lose a crap ton of performance.

With AMD, you can have massive performances at good temps and still have a long lifespan on the whole computer, because the AMD CPUs aren't cooking the rest of the components in the computer, like Intel does.

AMD is unbeatable when it comes to performance in a Mini-ITX case. PERIOD.

 

[bug]

Look up my last post over about the gaming performances. My point still stand that limiting the power usage on the 14th Gen Intel CPUs will massively reduce the gaming performance on them to the point that it will be completely pointless buying them for using them in a Mini-ITX case when you have no other choices to just limit the 14th Gen Intel CPU power usage A LOT to not cook the whole computer and drasticly reduce the lifespan of the other components in the computer.

With AMD, you can have massive performances at good temps and still have a long lifespan on the whole computer, because the AMD CPUs aren't cooking the rest of the components in the computer, like Intel does.

AMD is unbeatable when it comes to performance in a Mini-ITX case. PERIOD.

You have no point, you're just trolling. I have shown you dozens of TPU benchmarks saying you don't lose much gaming performance when you constrain ADL (which translated to RPL, being so closely related), you're clinging on a sample of one that shows otherwise.

And you're also trolling because no one in their right mind would consider changing a CPU from the current gen to another one from the same gen from the other maker.

Saying the extra heat will kill components quicker is also trolling. How much do you figure the lifespan of a capacitor designed to operate at 100C for 100,000 hours will be reduced if the temperature inside your case goes from 40C to 50C?

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

You have no point, you're just trolling. I have shown you dozens of TPU benchmarks saying you don't lose much gaming performance when you constrain ADL (which translated to RPL, being so closely related), you're clinging on a sample of one that shows otherwise.

And you're also trolling because no one in their right mind would consider changing a CPU from the current gen to another one from the same gen from the other maker.

Saying the extra heat will kill components quicker is also trolling. How much do you figure the lifespan of a capacitor designed to operate at 100C for 100,000 hours will be reduced if the temperature inside your case goes from 40C to 50C?

Are you blind?

There is 3 pictures that I posted over that shows CLEARLY that you lose a whole crap ton of performance on the 14900K CPU from Intel when you limits the power usage to the same level as the 7800X3D CPU from AMD have.

And why would you not limit the power on the 14900K in a Mini-ITX case when that basicly will cook the rest of the computer or in worst case reduce the lifespan on the other components in the computer a whole lot by not limiting the power usage on it?

Same principle goes for the 14600K and 14700K as well.

Either you will be throttled to hell and back or you will cook the inside of the Mini-ITX computer case. Choose your best cancer here.

 

[JustBenching]

My point still stand that capping the 14900K to 80w that is the same power usage as the 7800X3D have, will massively reduce the gaming performance on the 14900K CPU as shown by 'der8auer'. The same will happen if you cap the 14600K in the same way on the same power usage level as the 7700 AMD CPU.

Here is the picture that shows how much performance you lose in a game by lowering the power usage on a 14900K to the same power usage as the 7800X3D CPU have.

View attachment 318020

Heck, even the 7700 here would demolish the 14900K at 80w power limit on a WHOLE new level and gain way more FPS here. The 7800X3D is only 0.9% better in program performance over the 7700. The 7800X3D is 13.7% better in gaming performance at 1440p and only 5.3% better in gaming performance at 4K over the 7700 CPU. So, the 7700 CPU is about the same in gaming performance as the 7950X3D. So you can then use the 7950X3D as a reference to the 7700 in gaming performance in the chart over from 'der8auer'.

Here is 2 pictures that shows that the 7700 is on par with the 7950X3D in gaming performance under 1440p and 4K.

So in gaming, Intel stands no chance against AMD here. It's not even close. So why in the world would I buy a 14th Gen Intel CPU / 14600K CPU in a Mini-ITX case just to be forced to limit it's power because the low-profile CPU cooler can't handle it and massively reduce it's performance just to lose massively in gaming against a 7700 CPU from AMD?

Your point doesn't stand cause originally you were comparing the 14600k to the 7700 and now you are comparing 2 completely different cpus. You have no point, if you did you would actually post some numbers

Here you go, freshly run at stock settings:

View attachment 318021View attachment 318022

I don't actually have a dog in this fight, I was just annoyed because you kept asking for numbers and weren't getting given any so I thought I'd chip in. Hope this also helps.

I don't have a 14600k to test but I'll turn off 2 p cores from my 12900k. It's not fair, cause the 14600k is a much better bin than my 12900k but still, I'm pretty confident I can easily ourscore that.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

Your point doesn't stand cause originally you were comparing the 14600k to the 7700 and now you are comparing 2 completely different cpus. You have no point, if you did you would actually post some numbers

Just because I used the 14900K as an example, you think the same points doesn't apply to the 14600K or 14700K towards AMD counter parts here when we are talking about using those CPUs in a Mini-ITX case?

The 14600K will either throttle like crazy, because any low-profile CPU coolers can't handle nowhere near the full power output it has or it will cook the rest of the computer components if it doesn't get limited in power usage while being used in a Mini-ITX case. What downside do you choose?

I would choose no downsides and go for AMD in this case in a Mini-ITX case.

Have you ever used a Mini-ITX computer before?

 

[JustBenching]

Just because I used the 14900K as an example, you think the same points doesn't apply to the 14600K or 14700K towards AMD counter parts here when we are talking about using those CPUs in a Mini-ITX case?

The 14600K will either throttle like crazy, because any low-profile CPU coolers can't handle nowhere near the full power output it has or it will cook the rest of the computer components if it doesn't get limited in power usage while being used in a Mini-ITX case. What downside do you choose?

I would choose no downsides and go for AMD in this case in a Mini-ITX case.

Have you ever used a Mini-ITX computer before?

How many times do I need to repeat that the 14600k is vastly faster and more efficient than your 7700 at same wattage? At this point I think you are trolling me...

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

How many times do I need to repeat that the 14600k is vastly faster and more efficient than your 7700 at same wattage? At this point I think you are trolling me...

Not in gaming. Did you even bother to see my post over with 3 pictures of the gaming performance on those CPU's I posted longer up?

In gaming, the 7700 at 65w will demolish even the 14900K limited at 80w by a landslide in every single points / games. I have the proof of that.

Here is the post incase you are to blind to see it: Intel Core i5-14600K | Page 3 | TechPowerUp Forums

 

[JustBenching]

Not in gaming. Did you even bother to see my post over with 3 pictures of the gaming performance on those CPU's I posted longer up?

In gaming, the 7700 at 65w will demolish even the 14900K limited at 80w by a landslide in every single points / games. I have the proof of that.

Here is the post incase you are to blind to see it: Intel Core i5-14600K | Page 3 | TechPowerUp Forums

You started with apps. Then you started comparing different cpus. Now you dropped the application performance and you went with gaming. Man.... Seriously. Can you stick to a topic?

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

You started with apps. Then you started comparing different cpus. Now you dropped the application performance and you went with gaming. Man.... Seriously. Can you stick to a topic?

I started with both programs AND gaming in a Mini-ITX case.

Intel might be some stronger in some few programs, but in gaming, AMD wins by a landslide when we are talking about Mini-ITX cases. Because in a Mini-ITX case, you either have to let the Intel CPU to throttle like crazy or limit it's power usages to not cook the other components in the computer case.

 

[JustBenching]

I started with both programs AND gaming in a Mini-ITX case.

Intel might be some stronger in some few programs, but in gaming, AMD wins by a landslide when we are talking about Mini-ITX cases. because in a Mini-ITX case, you either have to let the Intel CPU to throttle like crazy or limit it's power usages to not cook the other components in the computer case.

Ok, so do we agree that in applications the 14600k at the same wattage beats your 7700? If yes, we can move on to gaming, no problem.

I'm playing dirt 2 and forza 8 right now, my 12900k consumes 25w in the first and around 40w in the latter, all locked to 120hz of my monitor. I can give you the videos if you want. Hogwarts is at around 60 watts. I can keep on going but you get the point

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

Ok, so do we agree that in applications the 14600k at the same wattage beats your 7700? If yes, we can move on to gaming, no problem.

I'm playing dirt 2 and forza 8 right now, my 12900k consumes 25w in the first and around 40w in the latter, all locked to 120hz of my monitor. I can give you the videos if you want.

The 14600K is a little better in SOME programs (that most peoples doesn't use anyways) over the 7700 when both runs at full power outputs. However, if you limit the 14600K power usage to the same power usage as the 7700, you will most likely lose around 12-15% performance in programs with that. And by that, the 7700 will still be ahead of the 14600K by quite alot when you have the same power usage on both CPUs.

When it comes to gaming, it's a totally different story when both CPU's runs at the same power draw (65w TDP). Now, I will say that you probably wont lose as much performance on the 14600K as you do with the 14900K by limiting it's power to the same level as AMDs counter part here. You will still lose a lot.

When you are using a Mini-ITX case, it's alpha omega to have components that draws as little power as possible. Imagine if you have a CPU that is basily a cooking plate and on top of that have a GPU that is power hungry as well. This wont end well for that Mini-ITX computer.

 

[JustBenching]

The 14600K is a little better in SOME programs (that most peoples doesn't use anyways) over the 7700 when both runs at full power outputs. However, if you limit the 14600K power usage to the same power usage as the 7700, you will most likely lose around 15-20% performance in programs with that. And by that, the 7700 will already be ahead of the 14600K by quite alot.

When it comes to gaming, it's a totally different story when both CPU's runs at the same power draw (65w TDP).

When you are using a Mini-ITX case, it's alpha omega to have components that draws as little power as possible. Imagine if you have a CPU that is basily a cooking plate and on top of that have a GPU that is power hungry as well. This wont end well for that Mini-ITX computer.

Oh, so you still insist that at same power 7700 will be faster? OK man, you are a lost cause. You just refuse to accept reality, nothing I can do can help you.

Post the game you like to test at whatever power limits and show us. I will do the same with my outdated 12900k. It will easily beat your 7700 drawing the same or less power. Stop talking and post proof.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

Oh, so you still insist that at same power 7700 will be faster? OK man, you are a lost cause. You just refuse to accept reality, nothing I can do can help you.

Post the game you like to test at whatever power limits and show us. I will do the same with my outdated 12900k. It will easily beat your 7700 drawing the same or less power. Stop talking and post proof.

Did you even read what I said?

I said that the 14600K is a little bit faster in "some" programs that doesn't really matters for most users anyways. Gaming performance is more relevant and important for more peoples over what some of the benchmarking programs is.

So it comes to what you prefer most between benchmarking or gaming. Gaming is WAAAAAAY more important for me.

 

[JustBenching]

Did you even read what I said?

I said that the 14600K is a little bit faster in "some" programs that doesn't really matters for most users anyways. Gaming performance is more relevant and important for more peoples over what some of the benchmarking programs do.

So it comes to what you prefer most between benchmarking or gaming. Gaming is most important by A LOT for me.

So the 14600k is faster in apps at the same wattage, but now application performance doesn't matter anymore. 10 posts ago when you thought your 7700 was faster, application performance was important. Gotcha

Ok, post your gaming results in the game of your choice with power draw and I'll post mine. Let's see that efficiency in action

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

So the 14600k is faster in apps at the same wattage, but now application performance doesn't matter anymore. 10 posts ago when you thought your 7700 was faster, application performance was important. Gotcha

Ok, post your gaming results in the game of your choice with power draw and I'll post mine. Let's see that efficiency in action

I said "some" programs like benchmarking programs and not all programs as you are trying to say here.

EDIT: I want a benchmark between my Ryzen 7 7700 against a 14600K from Intel.

 

[JustBenching]

I said "some" programs like benchmarking programs and not all programs as you are trying to say here.

What programs does it lose to? Let's test it

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

What programs does it lose to? Let's test it

Remember that benchmarking results rarely shows how the real world usage is in most cases. It's the same crap with smartphones as well. Everyone goes full AMAZING, WOW, INCREDIBLE over the benchmarking scores for the iPhones every year while most forgets that they are on the same level in real world usage speed as the high-end Android smartphones are, even when the iphones have a lot higher benchmarking scores.

Sure, for rendering videos like I also do, the GPUs are way more important here over the CPU.

 

[JustBenching]

Remember that benchmarking results rarely shows how the real world usage is in most cases. It's the same crap with smartphones as well. Everyone goes full AMAZING, WOW, INCREDIBLE over the benchmarking scores for the iPhones every year while they are on the same level in real world usage speed as the high-end Android smartphones are.

Sure, for rendering videos like I also do, the GPUs are way more important here over the CPU.

Which applications is your 7700 faster than the 14600k at same wattage? Can you name some?

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

Which applications is your 7700 faster than the 14600k at same wattage? Can you name some?

I care about the real world usage speed over some benchmarking scores when it comes to normal usage.

And i'm sure most normal users thinks the same.

The only time I care about the benchmark scores is when it's about compiling things, number crunching, things that are using the CPU fully out (which is few things) and if it's about doing a whole lot of rendering for both 3D graphic things, images and videos.

However, I game 95% of the times and do video encoding / rendering 5% of the times.

Also, I want a benchmark between my Ryzen 7 7700 against a 14600K from Intel and not your 12900K.