• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Core i9-14900K

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
27,849 (3.71/day)
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
Possibly the most puzzling "Editor's Choice" I've seen ever given on this website, this thing is just a slightly overclocked 13900k.
I will bite because "puzzling" and maybe not just trolling ..

1) 13900K is Editor's Choice, which nobody doubts? It's in a ton of rigs, these people can't be idiots
2) Giving Editor's Choice to the exact same CPU, at same pricing, with a different name, is reasonable, right? Just a name change doesn't change how it works in your PC? or am I reviewing naming schemes?
3) If that CPU now runs a bit faster, still at the same price, minor improvements, no drawback, we should we be taking away Editor's Choice?

I think people are just sad that "14" is not a lot faster than "13", which I agree is sad, and a failure by Intel.

It doesn't change the fact that the 14900K is the best high-performance Intel CPU available.
It offers amazing application performance AND amazing gaming performance (and the same crazy power draw of 13900K, which apparently a lot of people don't care about, see #1)
A lot of people will be buying it, just like the 13900K
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
185 (0.03/day)
I can not remember a CPU generation that has ever had such little gains. Has there ever been a less impressive u

P4 had regressions vs the faster P3s.

I will bite because "puzzling" and maybe not just trolling ..

1) 13900K is Editor's Choice, which nobody doubts? It's in a ton of rigs, these people can't be idiots
2) Giving Editor's Choice to the exact same CPU, at same pricing, with a different name, is reasonable, right? Just a name change doesn't change how it works in your PC?
3) If that CPU now runs a bit faster, still at the same price, minor improvements, no drawback, we should we be taking away Editor's Choice?

I think people are just sad that "14" is not a lot faster than "13", which I agree is sad, and a failure by Intel.

It doesn't change the fact that the 14900K is the best high-performance Intel CPU available.
It offers amazing application performance AND amazing gaming performance
A lot of people will be buying it, just like the 13900K

On this logic why did the 7800XT not get editors choice? It performs the same as the 6800XT, has lower power draw, is cheaper and it beats by far the 4060Ti 16GB which at launch was the direct price competitor so surely it ticks all the same boxes you just mentioned.

Personally I think a product with new generation branding should offer more than the old part to warrant an editors choice award. The 14700K probably gets there with the MT performance uplift but the 14900K and 14600K fall short, just like the 7800XT falls short since being the best of a bad batch does not make it great.
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
27,849 (3.71/day)
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
On this logic why did the 7800XT not get editors choice? It performs the same as the 6800XT, has lower power draw, is cheaper and it beats by far the 4060Ti 16GB which at launch was the direct price competitor so surely it ticks all the same boxes you just mentioned.
Very good question, it was a really close call. I actually went back through my history for you and looked up the internal discussion. When 6800 XT launched there was a shortage, no GeForce 40, no DLSS 3, RT didn't matter much. 7800 XT RT is lower, power is high, RTX 4070 is just $50 more. FSR 3 was vaporware at the time, it's released now and I'm still somewhat undecided about it until I've seen it in more games. If it turns out to be competitive with DLSS FG and supported in a decent number of games the 7800 XT would be Editor's Choice

4060 Ti 16 GB is stupid anyway, even though it's one of my best investments. I spent like 500 euros for it and the review is the 2nd most popular one after 4060 Ti FE and it keeps getting good traffic. the card is included in all of my gaming perf articles for 8 GB vs 16 GB, it's made the cost back several times already.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
185 (0.03/day)
Very good question, it was a really close call. I actually went back through my history for you and looked up the internal discussion. When 6800 XT launched there was a shortage, no GeForce 40, no DLSS 3, RT didn't matter much. 7800 XT RT is lower, power is high, RTX 4070 is just $50 more. FSR 3 was vaporware at the time, it's released now and I'm still somewhat undecided about it until I've seen it in more games. If it turns out to be competitive with DLSS FG and supported in a decent number of games the 7800 XT would be Editor's Choice

4060 Ti 16 GB is stupid anyway, even though it's one of my best investments. I spent like 500 euros for it and the review is the 2nd most popular one after 4060 Ti FE and it keeps getting good traffic. the card is included in all of my gaming perf articles for 8 GB vs 16 GB, it's made the cost back several times already.

That is fair, the competitive landscape in the GPU market has changed more since the 6800XT launch than the competitive landscape in the CPU market changed since the 13900K launch. I also think the Highly Recommended award for the 7800XT is spot on, good card, has some caveats but also some advantages vs NV so depends on user preference.
 
Joined
May 24, 2023
Messages
939 (1.69/day)
I am aware that under volting/lower power limits can make them more efficient.

But that goes for all cpu's and gpus for that matter.

But it dosent change the fact that intel and amd Stock run these cpus way out of there efficiency curve and it is not all that have the knowledge to limit power or lower voltage. So i still see it as a problem, Specielly for those less knowledge of it or Dont know example bios settings or maybe are afraid of changing things because they are afraid of damage the cpu in the process.
Well, normal people should buy finished PCs or not extreme special series CPUs for enthusiasts.

Unfortunatelly the normal 14900 "non K" will most likely have the same problem with power draw and temperature as the special K variant.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
11,878 (2.21/day)
Location
Manchester uk
System Name RyzenGtEvo/ Asus strix scar II
Processor Amd R5 5900X/ Intel 8750H
Motherboard Crosshair hero8 impact/Asus
Cooling 360EK extreme rad+ 360$EK slim all push, cpu ek suprim Gpu full cover all EK
Memory Corsair Vengeance Rgb pro 3600cas14 16Gb in four sticks./16Gb/16GB
Video Card(s) Powercolour RX7900XT Reference/Rtx 2060
Storage Silicon power 2TB nvme/8Tb external/1Tb samsung Evo nvme 2Tb sata ssd/1Tb nvme
Display(s) Samsung UAE28"850R 4k freesync.dell shiter
Case Lianli 011 dynamic/strix scar2
Audio Device(s) Xfi creative 7.1 on board ,Yamaha dts av setup, corsair void pro headset
Power Supply corsair 1200Hxi/Asus stock
Mouse Roccat Kova/ Logitech G wireless
Keyboard Roccat Aimo 120
VR HMD Oculus rift
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 8726 vega 3dmark timespy/ laptop Timespy 6506
I will bite because "puzzling" and maybe not just trolling ..

1) 13900K is Editor's Choice, which nobody doubts? It's in a ton of rigs, these people can't be idiots
2) Giving Editor's Choice to the exact same CPU, at same pricing, with a different name, is reasonable, right? Just a name change doesn't change how it works in your PC? or am I reviewing naming schemes?
3) If that CPU now runs a bit faster, still at the same price, minor improvements, no drawback, we should we be taking away Editor's Choice?

I think people are just sad that "14" is not a lot faster than "13", which I agree is sad, and a failure by Intel.

It doesn't change the fact that the 14900K is the best high-performance Intel CPU available.
It offers amazing application performance AND amazing gaming performance (and the same crazy power draw of 13900K, which apparently a lot of people don't care about, see #1)
A lot of people will be buying it, just like the 13900K
Because reviewer's gave it nice words, some only buy ,Intel and some are not aware of the choices.

I disagree with your badge for the 13900k though too so I agree with same same statement.

That however makes this less of a must choose not more.

High praise for Intel's zero effort will just inspire zero effort, again IMHO.


Plus ALL the positives, ARE countered by "your own" negatives Wtaf, zero sum game then.


Maximum Meh power.
 

Outback Bronze

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
2,030 (0.42/day)
Location
Walkabout Creek
System Name Raptor Baked
Processor 14900k w.c.
Motherboard Z790 Hero
Cooling w.c.
Memory 48GB G.Skill 7200
Video Card(s) Zotac 4080 w.c.
Storage 2TB Kingston kc3k
Display(s) Samsung 34" G8
Case Corsair 460X
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply PCIe5 850w
Mouse Asus
Keyboard Corsair
Software Win 11
Benchmark Scores Cool n Quiet.
so, today is the end of era

Yep, that's right.

No more i9, i7, i5 or i3. They are history. The first Core i7 was released back on November 3, 2008, and boy did a lot of people jump on the X58 bandwagon.

I have purchased quite a few i7 CPUs since that start date and I'm sure many other people can say they have purchased the odd one here or there too.

It's a damn shame they didn't finish the i7 branding with a bang after all these years, but I can happily say fare well to all my overclocking and computing history to the Core i7 family.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
3,013 (0.83/day)
System Name The beast and the little runt.
Processor Ryzen 5 5600X - Ryzen 9 5950X
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX B550-I GAMING - ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero X570
Cooling Noctua NH-L9x65 SE-AM4a - NH-D15 chromax.black with IPPC Industrial 3000 RPM 120/140 MM fans.
Memory G.SKILL TRIDENT Z ROYAL GOLD/SILVER 32 GB (2 x 16 GB and 4 x 8 GB) 3600 MHz CL14-15-15-35 1.45 volts
Video Card(s) GIGABYTE RTX 4060 OC LOW PROFILE - GIGABYTE RTX 4090 GAMING OC
Storage Samsung 980 PRO 1 TB + 2 TB - Samsung 870 EVO 4 TB - 2 x WD RED PRO 16 GB + WD ULTRASTAR 22 TB
Display(s) Asus 27" TUF VG27AQL1A and a Dell 24" for dual setup
Case Phanteks Enthoo 719/LUXE 2 BLACK
Audio Device(s) Onboard on both boards
Power Supply Phanteks Revolt X 1200W
Mouse Logitech G903 Lightspeed Wireless Gaming Mouse
Keyboard Logitech G910 Orion Spectrum
Software WINDOWS 10 PRO 64 BITS on both systems
Benchmark Scores Se more about my 2 in 1 system here: kortlink.dk/2ca4x
Well, normal people should buy finished PCs or not extreme special series CPUs for enthusiasts.

Unfortunatelly the normal 14900 "non K" will most likely have the same problem with power draw and temperature as the special K variant.
You can buy oem build pc with these high end cpu, so the noob end user can as well get them.

Typically the none k parts have lower wattage and core clock as well they tend to be more locked down when it comes to overclock.

Example 13900 none k has pl1 of 65 watt and lp2 219 watts. While 13900K has lp1 at 125 watt and lp2 at 253 watts. So no, the none k parts should not run as hot, but neither as fast.
 

Omega Race

New Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2023
Messages
2 (0.00/day)
I will bite because "puzzling" and maybe not just trolling ..

1) 13900K is Editor's Choice, which nobody doubts? It's in a ton of rigs, these people can't be idiots
2) Giving Editor's Choice to the exact same CPU, at same pricing, with a different name, is reasonable, right? Just a name change doesn't change how it works in your PC? or am I reviewing naming schemes?
3) If that CPU now runs a bit faster, still at the same price, minor improvements, no drawback, we should we be taking away Editor's Choice?
1. You probably have done this long enough to know that best sellers are not always best choices. We can agree that OEM machines are trash and people buying them are idiots, right? Looking at retail sales, AMD dominates. That means most of these CPUs go for OEM machines.

2. and 3 You forgot something: that is AMD.

From performance summary, 13900K review: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-13900k/25.html

Applications:
i9-13900K Stock: 100%
Ryzen 9 7950X: 95.7%

Games 720p:
i9-13900K Stock: 100%
Ryzen 9 7950X: 89.2%

Based on that data only, you can claim Intel is 4.3% faster on applications and 10.8% faster on games. Therefore, you can claim Intel is faster on both games and applications. Now let's see if something has changed:

From performance summary, 14900K review: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900k/27.html

Applications:
i9-14900K Stock: 100%
Ryzen 9 7950X: 97.1%
Ryzen 9 7950X3D: 95.1%

Games 720p:
Ryzen 7 7800X3D: 105.7%
Ryzen 9 7950X3D: 100.4%
i9-14900K Stock: 100%
Ryzen 9 7950X: 88.2%

Based on that data only, you can no longer claim Intel is winner on gaming performance.

Overall for 2. and 3., while 13900K was performance king on both applications and games based on data you provided, that is no longer case on 13900K.

It doesn't change the fact that the 14900K is the best high-performance Intel CPU available.
It offers amazing application performance AND amazing gaming performance (and the same crazy power draw of 13900K, which apparently a lot of people don't care about, see #1)
A lot of people will be buying it, just like the 13900K

Using that logic, let's jump two years ahead, this is pure speculation. Intel releases 16900K that is best high-performance Intel available. It's 5% faster than 14900K. At same time AMD has released both Zen5 and Zen 6 that are 30% faster than current Zen 4. Because 16900K is best Intel CPU available, it still receives editors choice award because 14900K also received? Basically, best Intel CPU is guaranteed to have Editors choice award?

Compared to AMD offerings, performance is nothing sort of "amazing".

As told previously, reviewers should stay with other "facts" than "it sells well". You are reviewing products, basically saying if it's good buy or not.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
3,891 (0.89/day)
System Name Skunkworks 3.0
Processor 5800x3d
Motherboard x570 unify
Cooling Noctua NH-U12A
Memory 32GB 3600 mhz
Video Card(s) asrock 6800xt challenger D
Storage Sabarent rocket 4.0 2TB, MX 500 2TB
Display(s) Asus 1440p144 27"
Case Old arse cooler master 932
Power Supply Corsair 1200w platinum
Mouse *squeak*
Keyboard Some old office thing
Software Manjaro
But the motherboards didn’t last a decade and there was no apparent reason the sockets had to keep changing.
But you didnt need them to, because the CPUs lasted a decade. You know?

You could buy a 3570k (like I did) and 10 years later it was STILL pushing 60 FPS in modern games. You didnt need a new mobo. Think of the savings!

The whole "OMG I need every CPU for 4 gens to fit a motherboard" is BS anyway. You are wasting TONS of cash upgrading every gen for meager gains, and in the end, you could have just bought the 1st gen, used it for 3 years, then bought the 4th gen and a new mobo and spend LESS money in the process. Someone who bought a x370 and 1700, then bought a x570 and a 5800x3d 5 years later, spent a lot less then someone who bought a x370, and a 1700, 2700, 3700, 5700, and 5800x3d (and likely a x570 in there anyway because AMD went OOPS and didnt update the firmware on x370s).
I am aware that under volting/lower power limits can make them more efficient.

But that goes for all cpu's and gpus for that matter.

But it dosent change the fact that intel and amd Stock run these cpus way out of there efficiency curve and it is not all that have the knowledge to limit power or lower voltage. So i still see it as a problem, Specielly for those less knowledge of it or Dont know example bios settings or maybe are afraid of changing things because they are afraid of damage the cpu in the process.
It's done for yields. AMD has been running outside of the efficiency curve for that purpose long before zen (llano laptop k10stat users get in here!)
Well, normal people should buy finished PCs or not extreme special series CPUs for enthusiasts.

Unfortunatelly the normal 14900 "non K" will most likely have the same problem with power draw and temperature as the special K variant.
You and I have completely different definitions of "normal people". If someone can actually assemble a PC they are far beyond normal already.

And pre builts are TRASH. ABSOLUTE trash. Look at the ones that gamer nexus gets. All the issue he highlighted will absolutely happen in prebuilts because these builders are barely sentient at times.
 

Omega Race

New Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2023
Messages
2 (0.00/day)
Another thing:


This is our most valuable award
It is given to a product that truly stands out from the competition, something that does a lot of things better than alternatives

Focusing on that "truly stands out from the competition, something that does a lot of things better than alternatives" -part.


We have here:
  • Matches 13900KS performance, beats it in some cases
- This is not comparison on main competitors.
  • Faster in productivity than any other AMD CPU
- This argument is valid if you want to see it that way.
  • Runs at up to 6.0 GHz
- AMD runs at up to 5.7 GHz. This is not something that "truly stands out from the competition"
  • Incredible gaming performance
- If competition is Ryzen 7 7800X3D or Ryzen 9 7950X3D, then it does not stand out from the competition.
  • Support for PCI-Express 5.0
- It does support PCIe 5.0 but with only pathetic 20 lanes. Most AM5 CPUs have 28 lanes.
  • Multiplier unlocked
- Competition has also.
  • Integrated graphics
- Competition has also.
  • Intel APO promises interesting benefits
- Not very interesting to be honest. And this doesn't really make any difference vs competition.
  • AI Assist in XTU helps newcomers
- You want to overclock CPU that already runs Superhot (good game btw)?
  • Compatible with 600 and 700 Series chipset motherboards
- Something AMD does not have, but upgrade wise AMD is still much better.
  • Support for DDR4 & DDR5 memory
Who pairs DDR4 with high end CPU today? It does stand out from competition but is pretty much useless feature for this CPU.

Now for questions:

1. What are those things 14900K do better than alternatives?

2. What makes 14900K really stand out from the competition?

My answers:

1. It does have bit better application performance overall based on your benchmarks. What is another thing, remains mystery. Can we really find even TWO things that 14900K does better and those are things that really matter too?

2. Positive list is very short. Negative list is much much much longer.

Seriously, how is editors choice award for 14900K justified? Based on Techpowerup own award standards, I just cannot see it.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
387 (0.07/day)
Processor i7 8700K
Motherboard MSI Z370 Gaming Plus
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S + NF-A12x25 PWM + 4xNF-A14 PWM
Memory 16 GB Adata XPG Dazzle DDR4 3000 MHz CL16
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GTX 1070 Ti Gaming 8G
Storage Samsung 970 EVO Plus, Samsung 850 Evo
Display(s) Samsung C24FG73 144Hz 1080p
Case Fractal Design Meshify C
Audio Device(s) Steelseries Arctis 3
Power Supply Superflower Leadex II Gold 650W
Mouse Steelseries Rival 600
Keyboard Steelseries Apex 7
Software Windows 11 Pro
I am beyond puzzled by the difference in tone between written reviews and those on YouTube like from GN and HUB.
The top award for... This?
I'll just have to see myself out. I think it's reasonable to expect reviewers to be more adversarial to these large corporations.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2018
Messages
657 (0.27/day)
There are very nice efficient chips hiding in each of these fire breathing monsters. You just need to limit them to sane frequencies and power draw.

I have a 13600K now, which is limited already pretty well from the factory to 5100 MHz and it draws max. 160 - 170W, if I remember correctly. I have an air cooler on it. It is still a reasonable product out of the factory.

Thats not even close to efficient when the 7950X exists in terms of performance and power draw; nothing intel has produced in the last 3 years can be called efficient when it comes to power consumption.

The fact intel has to push boost/boost limits and the processors so hard in general is very telling on the efficiency front.

On the award argument, I see both sides, but I disagree with the award. 14th gen is essentially a rebrand with more ecores on the 14700k, its a steamy, HOT, pile. It’s always sad to see tech media handing out free passes like hot cakes.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2021
Messages
1,648 (1.50/day)
Location
Mississauga, Canada
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Motherboard ASUS TUF Gaming X570-PRO (WiFi 6)
Cooling Noctua NH-C14S (two fans)
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3200
Video Card(s) Reference Vega 64
Storage Intel 665p 1TB, WD Black SN850X 2TB, Crucial MX300 1TB SATA, Samsung 830 256 GB SATA
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG27, and Samsung S23A700
Case Fractal Design R5
Power Supply Seasonic PRIME TITANIUM 850W
Mouse Logitech
VR HMD Oculus Rift
Software Windows 11 Pro, and Ubuntu 20.04
P4 had regressions vs the faster P3s.



On this logic why did the 7800XT not get editors choice? It performs the same as the 6800XT, has lower power draw, is cheaper and it beats by far the 4060Ti 16GB which at launch was the direct price competitor so surely it ticks all the same boxes you just mentioned.

Personally I think a product with new generation branding should offer more than the old part to warrant an editors choice award. The 14700K probably gets there with the MT performance uplift but the 14900K and 14600K fall short, just like the 7800XT falls short since being the best of a bad batch does not make it great.
Only the earliest Pentium 4 had regressions compared to the Pentium III. In less than a year, Pentium 4 had reached clock speeds twice as high as that of the Pentium III on the same process, and that was more than enough to thoroughly outclass its predecessor. I'm afraid that this is a worse release than the original Pentium 4 since that made up its IPC deficit by quickly dialling up the clocks.

But you didnt need them to, because the CPUs lasted a decade. You know?

You could buy a 3570k (like I did) and 10 years later it was STILL pushing 60 FPS in modern games. You didnt need a new mobo. Think of the savings!

The whole "OMG I need every CPU for 4 gens to fit a motherboard" is BS anyway. You are wasting TONS of cash upgrading every gen for meager gains, and in the end, you could have just bought the 1st gen, used it for 3 years, then bought the 4th gen and a new mobo and spend LESS money in the process. Someone who bought a x370 and 1700, then bought a x570 and a 5800x3d 5 years later, spent a lot less then someone who bought a x370, and a 1700, 2700, 3700, 5700, and 5800x3d (and likely a x570 in there anyway because AMD went OOPS and didnt update the firmware on x370s).

It's done for yields. AMD has been running outside of the efficiency curve for that purpose long before zen (llano laptop k10stat users get in here!)

You and I have completely different definitions of "normal people". If someone can actually assemble a PC they are far beyond normal already.

And pre builts are TRASH. ABSOLUTE trash. Look at the ones that gamer nexus gets. All the issue he highlighted will absolutely happen in prebuilts because these builders are barely sentient at times.
The right move for an AM4 user would have been to buy the 1700 or 1700X and then upgrade to the 5700X or the 5800X3D as Techspot tested. That would have been cheaper than your hypothetical upgrade of both the motherboard and the CPU. Of course, the user would have lost out on PCIe 4, but that is a minor drawback compared to the ability to upgrade to Zen 3.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
5,429 (0.85/day)
Location
Tennessee
System Name AM5
Processor AMD Ryzen R9 7950X
Motherboard Asrock X670E Taichi
Cooling EK AIO Basic 360
Memory Corsair Vengeance DDR5 5600 64 Gb - XMP1 Profile
Video Card(s) AMD Reference 7900 XTX 24 Gb
Storage Crucial Gen 5 1 TB, Samsung Gen 4 980 1 TB / Samsung 8TB SSD
Display(s) Samsung 34" 240hz 4K
Case Fractal Define R7
Power Supply Seasonic PRIME PX-1300, 1300W 80+ Platinum, Full Modular
I will bite because "puzzling" and maybe not just trolling ..

1) 13900K is Editor's Choice, which nobody doubts? It's in a ton of rigs, these people can't be idiots
2) Giving Editor's Choice to the exact same CPU, at same pricing, with a different name, is reasonable, right? Just a name change doesn't change how it works in your PC? or am I reviewing naming schemes?
3) If that CPU now runs a bit faster, still at the same price, minor improvements, no drawback, we should we be taking away Editor's Choice?

I think people are just sad that "14" is not a lot faster than "13", which I agree is sad, and a failure by Intel.

It doesn't change the fact that the 14900K is the best high-performance Intel CPU available.
It offers amazing application performance AND amazing gaming performance (and the same crazy power draw of 13900K, which apparently a lot of people don't care about, see #1)
A lot of people will be buying it, just like the 13900K

W1zzard I don’t disagree in terms of performance. However, there are TWO heavy cons which should have weighed this out of editor’s choice in my opinion:

1. Ridiculous power consumption.
2. Ridiculous channels limiting x8 when Gen 5 slot in use.

Further, I have the same opinion about the 13900K, and it shouldn’t have been an Editor’s Choice in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
3,891 (0.89/day)
System Name Skunkworks 3.0
Processor 5800x3d
Motherboard x570 unify
Cooling Noctua NH-U12A
Memory 32GB 3600 mhz
Video Card(s) asrock 6800xt challenger D
Storage Sabarent rocket 4.0 2TB, MX 500 2TB
Display(s) Asus 1440p144 27"
Case Old arse cooler master 932
Power Supply Corsair 1200w platinum
Mouse *squeak*
Keyboard Some old office thing
Software Manjaro
Only the earliest Pentium 4 had regressions compared to the Pentium III. In less than a year, Pentium 4 had reached clock speeds twice as high as that of the Pentium III on the same process, and that was more than enough to thoroughly outclass its predecessor. I'm afraid that this is a worse release than the original Pentium 4 since that made up its IPC deficit by quickly dialling up the clocks.
It wasnt the clockspeeds that fixed Northwood, it was the cache. The 128k l2 cache celeron Ds, even at 2.6 GHz, were even SLOWER then first gen williamettes.
The right move for an AM4 user would have been to buy the 1700 or 1700X and then upgrade to the 5700X or the 5800X3D as Techspot tested. That would have been cheaper than your hypothetical upgrade of both the motherboard and the CPU. Of course, the user would have lost out on PCIe 4, but that is a minor drawback compared to the ability to upgrade to Zen 3.
Given how rare such a build is compared to the number of ryzen 5000+500 series boards, I'm gonna say that most people chose not to do that. AMD themselves tried, HARD, to prevent it, until the community revolted.

But yes, on a technicality that would be best. Assuming your 300 series board got the proper BIOS updates and was not abandoned, and you didnt want PBO support, of course.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2021
Messages
1,648 (1.50/day)
Location
Mississauga, Canada
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Motherboard ASUS TUF Gaming X570-PRO (WiFi 6)
Cooling Noctua NH-C14S (two fans)
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3200
Video Card(s) Reference Vega 64
Storage Intel 665p 1TB, WD Black SN850X 2TB, Crucial MX300 1TB SATA, Samsung 830 256 GB SATA
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG27, and Samsung S23A700
Case Fractal Design R5
Power Supply Seasonic PRIME TITANIUM 850W
Mouse Logitech
VR HMD Oculus Rift
Software Windows 11 Pro, and Ubuntu 20.04
It wasnt the clockspeeds that fixed Northwood, it was the cache. The 128k l2 cache celeron Ds, even at 2.6 GHz, were even SLOWER then first gen williamettes.

Given how rare such a build is compared to the number of ryzen 5000+500 series boards, I'm gonna say that most people chose not to do that. AMD themselves tried, HARD, to prevent it, until the community revolted.

But yes, on a technicality that would be best. Assuming your 300 series board got the proper BIOS updates and was not abandoned, and you didnt want PBO support, of course.
Northwood fixed Pentium 4, but even the later Williamette SKUs such as the 2 GHz one that I linked to were better than the P III at everything. Of course, Athlon was another story and even at 1.2 GHz, Palomino was often faster than the P4 at 2 GHz.

I agree that AMD didn't handle the X370 generation well. It seemed that they didn't want users of X370 or B350 to upgrade to Zen 3. I suppose they wanted the money for the new chipset that the sale of a new motherboard would bring.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
361 (0.19/day)
Applications:
i9-13900K Stock: 100%
Ryzen 9 7950X: 95.7%

Games 720p:
i9-13900K Stock: 100%
Ryzen 9 7950X: 89.2%

Based on that data only, you can claim Intel is 4.3% faster on applications and 10.8% faster on games. Therefore, you can claim Intel is faster on both games and applications. Now let's see if something has changed:[/B]
LMFTFY: "Based on that data only, you can claim Intel is 4.5% faster on applications and 12.1% faster on games."[/b]
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
1,170 (0.98/day)
Keep in mind that these are extremely complex products at the cutting edge of the knowledge of a humankind. There is only so much progress that can be done.
Let's be more down to Earth. Grade-Hopper and MI300 are at the cutting edge, and not Raptor Lake refresh.
Depending on the circumstances in development and manufacturing, there is no wonder that one year a company has nothing really new to offer. This "14th gen" is a PR stunt, nothing more.
Well, it was their choice.
I personally believe that expecting new CPUs each year is dumb and making a new CPU a year actually wastes a lot of resources. Two or three year cadence seems much more reasonable to me. You would get nice performance improvements in this more reasonable cadence too.
I do not expect annual products. It is Intel that decided to shove those CPUs down our throats. They can only blame themselves.

If a refresh is already released, I'd expect to see at least a few meaningful improvements in some components, such as iGPU and chipset. This was the case with Coffee Lake refresh. Here, there is almost nothing, not even upgrade in x4 SSD lanes on CPU from Gen4 to Gen5. The result is that motherboards still "borrow" or "steal" those lanes from one GPU slot to make this provision. It's silly...
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
9,177 (3.35/day)
System Name Best AMD Computer
Processor AMD 7900X3D
Motherboard Asus X670E E Strix
Cooling In Win SR36
Memory GSKILL DDR5 32GB 5200 30
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse 7900XT (Watercooled)
Storage Corsair MP 700, Seagate 530 2Tb, Adata SX8200 2TBx2, Kingston 2 TBx2, Micron 8 TB, WD AN 1500
Display(s) GIGABYTE FV43U
Case Corsair 7000D Airflow
Audio Device(s) Corsair Void Pro, Logitch Z523 5.1
Power Supply Deepcool 1000M
Mouse Logitech g7 gaming mouse
Keyboard Logitech G510
Software Windows 11 Pro 64 Steam. GOG, Uplay, Origin
Benchmark Scores Firestrike: 46183 Time Spy: 25121
Just to throw some muck into it. I went on Asus website and there was a new BIOS. All it said was Support for Upcoming CPUs. If AMD is going to drop Phoenix APUs as a response it will be a mic drop. Especially now that they release those huge RAM modules running at 7000 Mt/s and sipping 65 Watts.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
1,852 (0.64/day)
After reading the comments and Wizzard’s responses, I have to agree with the comments. Using the transitive property to award products is not a good idea. The 13900k received an editor’s choice award, the 14900k is the exact same CPU therefore also should receive the same award means that Intel can release the same product every year for infinite time and always receive the editor’s choice award. That doesn’t sound great to me.
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
695 (0.15/day)
Location
Australia
System Name Eula
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 7900X PBO
Motherboard ASUS TUF Gaming X670E Plus Wifi
Cooling Corsair H150i Elite LCD XT White
Memory Trident Z5 Neo RGB DDR5-6000 64GB (4x16GB F5-6000J3038F16GX2-TZ5NR) EXPO II, OCCT Tested
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GeForce RTX 4080 GAMING OC
Storage Corsair MP600 XT NVMe 2TB, Samsung 980 Pro NVMe 2TB, Toshiba N300 10TB HDD, Seagate Ironwolf 4T HDD
Display(s) Acer Predator X32FP 32in 160Hz 4K FreeSync/GSync DP, LG 32UL950 32in 4K HDR FreeSync/G-Sync DP
Case Phanteks Eclipse P500A D-RGB White
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z
Power Supply Corsair HX1000 Platinum 1000W
Mouse SteelSeries Prime Pro Gaming Mouse
Keyboard SteelSeries Apex 5
Software MS Windows 11 Pro
Blender's BMW27 doesn't reflect higher complex scenes e.g. classroom.
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
1,197 (0.20/day)
After reading the comments and Wizzard’s responses, I have to agree with the comments. Using the transitive property to award products is not a good idea. The 13900k received an editor’s choice award, the 14900k is the exact same CPU therefore also should receive the same award means that Intel can release the same product every year for infinite time and always receive the editor’s choice award. That doesn’t sound great to me.
If we had a confirmed, near term launch date of Zen 5 or Arrow Lake, then yeah I'd be strongly against giving an award for the 14900K.

As it stands right now though, Zen 5 is just "some time in 2024", and the 14900K's performance compared to what is currently available is still favourable, albeit disappointingly undistinguished from Intel's previous gen. It doesn't perform much better than the 13900K, but it's also not much more expensive. A KS, without the KS markup.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
6,728 (1.39/day)
Processor Intel® Core™ i7-13700K
Motherboard Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX
Cooling Noctua NH-D15
Memory 32GB(2x16) DDR5@6600MHz G-Skill Trident Z5
Video Card(s) ZOTAC GAMING GeForce RTX 3080 AMP Holo
Storage 2TB SK Platinum P41 SSD + 4TB SanDisk Ultra SSD + 500GB Samsung 840 EVO SSD
Display(s) Acer Predator X34 3440x1440@100Hz G-Sync
Case NZXT PHANTOM410-BK
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium PCIe
Power Supply Corsair 850W
Mouse Logitech Hero G502 SE
Software Windows 11 Pro - 64bit
Benchmark Scores 30FPS in NFS:Rivals
This Intel release of this "new" gen, is almost as bad as the release of a "new" iPhone 15, compared to 14. Or 13. Or 12. Or...
 
Top