Intel Core i5-14600K

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

So the 12600k uses less power for similar gaming performance. Obviously that's the one you should have bought, your 7700 is a space heater and performance in games is equal to intel from 3 generations ago. Bad choice

Seems like I have to post this again, so here we go.....

As posted here: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/intel-core-i5-14600k.314663/post-5124183

The 7700 is using 55% less power over the 12600K in 'Power Consumption (Multi Threaded)' tasks. It also uses 29% less power over the 12600K under 'Power Consumption - Applications (45 Tests Average)'. It also perform 13.4% better in application performance over the 12600K and it performs 0.3% better in gaming over the 12600K as you can see here: https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7700-non-x/images/relative-performance-games-2560-1440.png

And even though the 12600K uses 2w less power over the 7700 at stock power outputs on both CPUs under gaming, doesn't change the fact that the 12600K gets crushed by the 7700 here in those other tasks listed over.

And as there is very little differences from the 12600K to the 14600K (maybe 4-6% on average) in those same tasks, then the 7700 is still better than the 14600K in most of those tasks on average.

CLEARLY, the 12600K beats the 7700 here. YUP.

 

[JustBenching]

Seems like I have to post this again, so here we go.....

As posted here: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/intel-core-i5-14600k.314663/post-5124183

The 7700 is using 55% less power over the 12600K in 'Power Consumption (Multi Threaded)' tasks. It also uses 29% less power over the 12600K under 'Power Consumption - Applications (45 Tests Average)'. It also perform 13.4% better in application performance over the 12600K and it performs 0.3% better in gaming over the 12600K as you can see here: https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7700-non-x/images/relative-performance-games-2560-1440.png

And even though the 12600K uses 2w less power over the 7700 at stock power outputs on both CPUs under gaming, doesn't change the fact that the 12600K gets crushed by the 7700 here in those other tasks listed over.

And as there is very little differences from the 12600K to the 14600K (maybe 4-6% on average) in those same tasks, then the 7700 is still better than the 14600K in most of those tasks on average.

CLEARLY, the 12600K beats the 7700 here. YUP.

The 14600k is 25% faster than the 12600k in applications, it absolutely destroys your 7700 in both games and applications. Your 7700 competes in performance to an i5 from 3 generations ago while it needs more power thus creating more heat.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

The 14600k is 25% faster than the 12600k in applications, it absolutely destroys your 7700 in both games and applications. Your 7700 competes in performance to an i5 from 3 generations ago while it needs more power thus creating more heat.

No, the 14600k is 20.2% faster in applications on average over the 12600K as you can see here.

So where do you get the 25% from?

Still, the 7700 is 9.7% slower in application performance over the 14600K as the picture over shows. So you get a tiny weee 9,7% better application performance for 63% more power usage under application use on the 14600K (93w) over the 7700 CPU (57w) at stock power outputs (taken from the power usage charts from both CPUs here on TechPowerUp).

Doesn't sounds like a good deal to use on a Mini-ITX computer.

 

[Gica]

You have a 7700. Try to get a cbr23 score of 24k and tell me how much wattage was needed.

Even with LN2 cooling, it does not achieve a score of 24K in Cine R23.
I tried something myself. I underclocked the i5-13500 with 400 MHz for 5-6 P cores and got the result of the 7700X with a Ryzen non-X consumption. According to TPU, the 7700X eats 130W for this score.
I mention that the wattmeter measured 164.5 W in peak, but it is a whole discussion here because the configurations differ from user to user. The office system, with 13500, drops to 22W in idle.. On this system, it does not go below 62W for reasons of cooling (AIO), number of fans, the case controller and only the video card eats 14W in idle.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

Yeah, it was rumored to launch at close to $400, which would have sucked. But at $320 MSRP (i.e. soon $300 or slightly below street price), it's actually a compelling upgrade from my 12600k. I'm not sure I'll pull the trigger on one, I don't really need the extra HP, but I can see how other would.

@fevgatos You went hook, line and sinker for @Dronekongen Fra Ålesund red herring. Nobody is supposed to upgrade from a 7700 to a 14600k. It's an obvious sidegrade even if one can be slightly ahead of the other in some scenarios. This series is meant as nothing more than a bit more back for your buck compared to the original RPL.

if it ever goes less than $300, AMD won't even get an "optional" option for those who are squeezing every buck they could when building/upgrading a rig.

 

[bug]

No, the 14600k is 20.2% faster in applications on average over the 12600K as you can see here.

So where do you get the 25% from?

Still, the 7700 is 9.7% slower in application performance over the 14600K as the picture over shows. So you get a tiny weee 9,7% better application performance for 63% more power usage under application use on the 14600K (93w) over the 7700 CPU (57w) at stock power outputs (taken from the power usage charts from both CPUs here on TechPowerUp).

Doesn't sounds like a good deal to use on a Mini-ITX computer.

@fevgatos See? He can't even figure out percentages, he's not worth the effort.

@Dronekongen Fra Ålesund 100/80=1.25. That's 25% more than the baseline (12600k).

 

[Gica]

As usual, energy efficiency is the only weapon with which an AMD supporter can counterattack in the area of processors. It doesn't matter that an i5 beats a Ryzen 7 and that it's cheaper. For video cards, the same supporters "forget" about energy efficiency and use the price as a weapon.
All this discussion about energy efficiency takes place in the era of LEDs. Everyone wants "glitters" that inflate purchase prices and consume, from case to case, dozens of watts per hour. Oh, and they don't have an RTX 4090 because statistics show that the vast majority of gamers use low-entry-middle video cards.
The discussion about the energy efficiency of processors (very debatable nowadays because Intel does better in light applications) is at least hilarious when a video card ended up putting a power plant in difficulty.

 

[kapone32]

No, the 14600k is 20.2% faster in applications on average over the 12600K as you can see here.

So where do you get the 25% from?

Still, the 7700 is 9.7% slower in application performance over the 14600K as the picture over shows. So you get a tiny weee 9,7% better application performance for 63% more power usage under application use on the 14600K (93w) over the 7700 CPU (57w) at stock power outputs (taken from the power usage charts from both CPUs here on TechPowerUp).

Doesn't sounds like a good deal to use on a Mini-ITX computer.

The average user would not even notice the difference between the 2. They both have their place but there are 2 facts that every review confirms

1. It draws a lot of power by default
2. It is meh vs the previous gen.

In Canada they are the exact same price. Using common sense you could

1. Get Z790 board and have to change everything sooner.

2. Get a B650 or X670 board and a 7700X to know that you can change the CPU for something faster at least 2 or 3 more times.

Using common sense you could use the 14600K as an upgrade to 12600s to 13600s owners but that would not result in a perceived result desired as the reviews have shown.

At end of the day it is fine but cannot compete in efficiency but would still be fine for Gaming. 6 GHz is a milestone but I expect the next chip for AMD to do the same

 

[sLowEnd]

The average user would not even notice the difference between the 2. They both have their place but there are 2 facts that every review confirms

1. It draws a lot of power by default
2. It is meh vs the previous gen.

In Canada they are the exact same price. Using common sense you could

1. Get Z790 board and have to change everything sooner.

2. Get a B650 or X670 board and a 7700X to know that you can change the CPU for something faster at least 2 or 3 more times.

Using common sense you could use the 14600K as an upgrade to 12600s to 13600s owners but that would not result in a perceived result desired as the reviews have shown.

At end of the day it is fine but cannot compete in efficiency but would still be fine for Gaming. 6 GHz is a milestone but I expect the next chip for AMD to do the same

Or

3. Get whatever, use it for several years, and buy whatever the best newest platform is when you finally decide to build a new computer.

Upgradability within a socket is not always a relevant perk for everyone. Many keep their PCs as is for years and opt for entire system rebuilds when they need a faster computer, instead of going for upgrades. How many people are still using Sandy/Ivy/Haswell/Skylake...etc.? Lots. Does the lack of upgradability for those sockets matter to them at this point? No, they will go for a rebuild instead of an upgrades if they want faster computer.

 

[Gica]

In Canada they are the exact same price. Using common sense you could

14600KF it costs $31 less, at least here.
I remind you that marketing with the longevity of the platform is just marketing and that's all.
1. Very few users used B300 motherboards for zen 3. AMD didn't offer support for them until very late, towards the end of this platform's life. Those, very few, who used B300 with Zen 3, either stayed 5 years with Zen 1 (very weak in single-core and gaming), or changed the processor and I ask where is the economy if you use the same motherboard but change at least 3 processors ???
2. Changing the processor every 1-2 years does not mean economy if you do not change the motherboard. Socket 1700 turns two years old next month, and 12th processors are not outdated. You can upgrade to 13th next year for another three years and you can use the same motherboard for 5, 6 or even more years. In my case, according to the reviews, upgrading from 12500 to 14700KF means a 25% boost in single core and well over 100% in multicore. From ~14.000 to >34000 (Cine R23 MT) and from 5100 to 14.500 (CPU-Z MT) is a jump that does not go unnoticed by the naked eye.

 

[kapone32]

14600KF it costs $31 less, at least here.
I remind you that marketing with the longevity of the platform is just marketing and that's all.
1. Very few users used B300 motherboards for zen 3. AMD didn't offer support for them until very late, towards the end of this platform's life. Those, very few, who used B300 with Zen 3, either stayed 5 years with Zen 1 (very weak in single-core and gaming), or changed the processor and I ask where is the economy if you use the same motherboard but change at least 3 processors ???
2. Changing the processor every 1-2 years does not mean economy if you do not change the motherboard. Socket 1700 turns two years old next month, and 12th processors are not outdated. You can upgrade to 13th next year for another three years and you can use the same motherboard for 5, 6 or even more years. In my case, according to the reviews, upgrading from 12500 to 14700KF means a 25% boost in single core and well over 100% in multicore. From ~14.000 to >34000 (Cine R23 MT) and from 5100 to 14.500 (CPU-Z MT) is a jump that does not go unnoticed by the naked eye.

Obviously you never had AMD CPUs.

1. Very few users used B300 motherboards for zen 3. AMD didn't offer support for them until very late, towards the end of this platform's life. Those, very few, who used B300 with Zen 3, either stayed 5 years with Zen 1 (very weak in single-core and gaming), or changed the processor and I ask where is the economy if you use the same motherboard but change at least 3 processors ???

You are acting like Zen 5 is the same as Zen1 or Zen 2. The 300 series did not support PCie 4.0 and the 400 series did. That was the main reason that people upgraded their MB. There is also the fact that if what you are saying is true then there would not have been the blowback when AMD announced the Zen 4 did not support the 300 series MBs. Now we have X670 with multiple 5.0 and the only thing next boards will have is USB 4 but I don't need USB 4. When X370 launched there were a maximum of 2 NVME slots. The board I have has 5 NVME slots and supports 3 full length PCIe slots that are 5.0 for 2 and 4.0 for 1. Why would I need to update a board that is already current.

2. Changing the processor every 1-2 years does not mean economy if you do not change the motherboard. Socket 1700 turns two years old next month, and 12th processors are not outdated. You can upgrade to 13th next year for another three years and you can use the same motherboard for 5, 6 or even more years. In my case, according to the reviews, upgrading from 12500 to 14700KF means a 25% boost in single core and well over 100% in multicore. From ~14.000 to >34000 (Cine R23 MT) and from 5100 to 14.500 (CPU-Z MT) is a jump that does not go unnoticed by the naked eye.

Yes indeed you did not have AM4. Do you understand that every release on AM4 gave at least a 15% jump in IPC (without changing the board). Yes you can upgrade to Z790 using 12th Gen and you can thank AMD for that. Longevity? really? My X370 board still fully works and I could get a CPU for it tomorrow but that does not mean I still want to use it. I am glad that you are comparing a 6 core CPU to a 20 core CPU but I guess that does not matter as you know what would happen if you used the 12700K. I mean you are comparing a 5600X to a 7900X if you are using AMD as an analogy for your argument. BTW you upgrade the MB on AMD because they give you compelling boards but I don't have to worry about cutting PCIe lanes because I get a 5.0 drive for the main M2 slot.

 

[Gica]

You are acting like Zen 5 is the same as Zen1 or Zen 2. The 300 series did not support PCie 4.0 and the 400 series did. That was the main reason that people upgraded their MB.

Bingo! And it is only one of the reasons.
Otherwise, you are talking words. Acclaim the longevity of a socket but change motherboards more like those with Intel owners.

P.S. AMD owners aren't exactly thrilled with the jump from Zen 3 to Zen 4.

 

[kapone32]

Bingo! And it is only one of the reasons.
Otherwise, you are talking words. Acclaim the longevity of a socket but change motherboards more like those with Intel owners.

P.S. AMD owners aren't exactly thrilled with the jump from Zen 3 to Zen 4.

You are not looking at reality. Since the launch of AM5 the biggest caveat has gone away. DDR5 prices are now the same as DDR4. 24&48 GB DDR5 modules are supported. When you see that the MBs for AM5 have not gone down in price you would understand that sales are fine. I know that you think that AMD has not progressed since 2015 from the way you make Intel seem so much better but you are in the minority in that as Intel do not seem to have learned and what is different about the Z790 from last year vs the Z790 from this year? Wifi 7?

Telling me that I am not happy going from the 5800X3D to the 7900X3D seems like you are drawing at straws. You have no idea how they perform but I know that your 13500 is not in the ball park but if you wanted to pay that much for 6 cores be my guest as I do everything faster than you with my weak AMD system that allows me to play all Games at 4K high refresh.

Or

3. Get whatever, use it for several years, and buy whatever the best newest platform is when you finally decide to build a new computer.

Upgradability within a socket is not always a relevant perk for everyone. Many keep their PCs as is for years and opt for entire system rebuilds when they need a faster computer, instead of going for upgrades. How many people are still using Sandy/Ivy/Haswell/Skylake...etc.? Lots. Does the lack of upgradability for those sockets matter to them at this point? No, they will go for a rebuild instead of an upgrades if they want faster computer.

You are talking about people in the Intel space. AMD users actually appreciate that they don't have to change their board to enjoy a new CPU. It is not like you can't do an entire system build and that is what AM4 did. It gave you a faster PC with every release of CPU. If MBs were so necessary to upgrade their would be bigger difference in reviews for speed but VRM and flexibility are the mitigating factors in MBs not speed.

Of course this is TPU so we don't represent the average user but a friend called me on Tuesday and asked what he should do to upgrade his 2700x and settled on the 5800X3D. Does Intel have anything like that? That is like taking a 10700 system and replacing it with a 12700 but you can't do that on Intel can you?

 

[bug]

Of course this is TPU so we don't represent the average user but a friend called me on Tuesday and asked what he should do to upgrade his 2700x and settled on the 5800X3D. Does Intel have anything like that? That is like taking a 10700 system and replacing it with a 12700 but you can't do that on Intel can you?

You can go from a 12600k to a 14600k of from a 12700k to 14700k and get 4 more cores. You can go from a 12400 to a 14900k. I went from a 6600k to a 12600k and spent $0 on RAM. So yeah, you can upgrade Intel for cheap, too.

 

[chrcoluk]

So Intel now using Nvidia strategy of locking software features to new SKU's as a means of selling hardware, not a good move. The intel tuning software has no reason other than segmentation to not be usable on 12th and 13th gen.

On the flip side given there is no custom profiles and requires Intel to add games on a game by game basis probably not at this time much of a feature anyway. Hopefully someone makes a user friendly open source tool that does same thing, in the mean time I keep managing affinity via process hacker (system informer). Setting windows to prefer p-cores on its built in scheduler is also a very good optimised default baseline. That alone boosts cpuz, single threaded cinebench etc. scores.

Any ideas on the slightly lower power consumption of this vs the 13600k @W1zzard given it has higher clocks, curious if you was able to compare the voltages to see if this is binned better in that area? The only thing I read that might be related is the improvements in manufacturing processes.

 

[bug]

Any ideas on the slightly lower power consumption of this vs the 13600k @W1zzard given it has higher clocks, curious if you was able to compare the voltages to see if this is binned better in that area? The only thing I read that might be related is the improvements in manufacturing processes.

It's basically the only reason RPL refresh exists. The manufacturing improvements were apparently above average, so Intel thought it was worth playing with TDP, frequencies and power delivery.

 

[AnotherReader]

It's basically the only reason RPL refresh exists. The manufacturing improvements were apparently above average, so Intel thought it was worth playing with TDP, frequencies and power delivery.

The only reason RPL refresh exists is to fool less savvy users into buying one. OEMs like Dell also love new numbers every year.

 

[kapone32]

You can go from a 12600k to a 14600k of from a 12700k to 14700k and get 4 more cores. You can go from a 12400 to a 14900k. I went from a 6600k to a 12600k and spent $0 on RAM. So yeah, you can upgrade Intel for cheap, too.

Yes but you still had to buy a CPU and MB.

 

[bug]

Yes but you still had to buy a CPU and MB.

Yes, when upgrading the CPU you have to buy a CPU. Maybe you don't if you buy AMD, but that's how Intel rolls. Motherboard, you can reuse, it's the same socket.

The only reason RPL refresh exists is to fool less savvy users into buying one. OEMs like Dell also love new numbers every year.

Right. And if Intel simply named those parts 13650k, 13750k and 13950k you'd be screaming they're trying to confuse by not differentiating enough.

I mean, how do you figure users would be fooled? Last week they could buy a 13600k for ~$300, today they can buy a 14600k for the same amount.

 

[AnotherReader]

Yes, when upgrading the CPU you have to buy a CPU. Maybe you don't if you buy AMD, but that's how Intel rolls. Motherboard, you can reuse, it's the same socket.


Right. And if Intel simply named those parts 13650k, 13750k and 13950k you'd be screaming they're trying to confuse by not differentiating enough.

I mean, how do you figure users would be fooled? Last week they could buy a 13600k for ~$300, today they can buy a 14600k for the same amount.

No, calling the 14900K the 13950K would have been the right thing. I think that Intel's price drop for yesterday's performance with this "new" generation is to be commended, but calling it a new generation is rather dishonest and they should be called out on that.

 

[bug]

No, calling the 14900K the 13950K would have been the right thing. I think that Intel's price drop for yesterday's performance with this "new" generation is to be commended, but calling it a new generation is rather dishonest and they should be called out on that.

Should I look up posts by you protesting AMD launching Zen+ as Ryzen 2000 instead of Ryzen 1050? Will I find any?

 

[AnotherReader]

Should I look up posts by you protesting AMD launching Zen+ as Ryzen 2000 instead of Ryzen 1050? Will I find any?

What does my reaction to Zen+ have anything to do with Intel's lackluster 14th generation? I wasn't even on the board at that time, but even though it didn't move the needle much, it still improved upon its predecessor more than the 14900K improved upon the 13900KS. Even Intel has done better in the past. The 4790K was a bigger upgrade over the 4770K than this rebranding. I'll make this easy for you by dropping the requirement to beat the 13900KS convincingly; name one benchmark where the 14900K improves upon the 13900K by 13% which is the improvement from the 4770K to the 4790K in Cinbench R15.

 

[Super Firm Tofu]

The only reason RPL refresh exists is to fool less savvy users into buying one. OEMs like Dell also love new numbers every year.

I mean 'refresh' is right in the name, but if we want to ignore that, this type of behavior is all over the industry.

Just the other day I was looking to replace my laptop and I found one that had a Ryzen 7320u. I thought, wow, Zen 4 - more than enough for surfing TPU during the day while working. Until you drill down and find out that this recently released 7000 series APU is just Zen 2 with a label slapped on it. Zen 2 has been sold at 3000, 4000, 5000, and now 7000 series CPUs.

I guess everyone is looking for the less savvy users.

 

[AnotherReader]

I mean 'refresh' is right in the name, but if we want to ignore that, this type of behavior is all over the industry.

Just the other day I was looking to replace my laptop and I found one that had a Ryzen 7320u. I thought, wow, Zen 4 - more than enough for surfing TPU during the day while working. Until you drill down and find out that this recently released 7000 series APU is just Zen 2 with a label slapped on it. Zen 2 has been sold at 3000, 4000, 5000, and now 7000 series CPUs.

I guess everyone is looking for the less savvy users.

Haswell refresh did much better than this. I don't spare AMD either. AMD's atrocious naming for the 7000 mobile series has been criticized widely and I don't think anyone should defend them. This isn't about Intel vs AMD. We should expect better from all of them.

 

[chrcoluk]

Expecting big performance increases year on year is a very high expectation and perhaps not even realistic, for me its simply that they shouldnt have released this gen. There is no need to release a CPU so often.

I am glad meteor lake was delayed, as being selfish my CPU stays relevant for longer, hoping AMD's next gen is disappointing or also delayed.