Intel Core i7-14700K

[RandallFlagg]

100% agreed. What's fun is running a CPU that way at ~50% duty cycle for years in ignorance and then learning much later that just maybe it's not a good idea. This is why I now have major issues with AMD's 95°C "is acceptable" stance and Intel's recent power settings resulting in 100°C being unavoidable in i7s and i9s even with a 360mm AIO.

Did video conversions for 2-3 years with 2012 Mac Mini 2.6 GHz Core i7-3720QM at that 50% duty cycle with it pegged at 100°C and throttling most of the year. After 3 years the demand waned a bit so I turned off turbo so it ran at 2.6GHz ~80°C as awareness dawned that 100°C might not be great. A couple years later built an i5-8400 w/Hyper 212 at 65°C ACT 3.8 GHz, an actually sane way to do conversions having learned the error of my ways.

The 2012 Mini still works great somehow but I have little need to do demanding things with it any more.

Even if the CPU can take it, I've seen quite a few videos and posts over the years indicating this this can affect other components near the CPU socket and result in premature failure of the motherboard. And of course, not all motherboards are created equal.

 

[Kapone33]

For @kapone32



View attachment 318492View attachment 318493



View attachment 318494

View attachment 318495View attachment 318496

I don't have a 7950X3D.

 

[chrcoluk]

@W1zzard any testing results for 12,13th, or 14th gen for RPCS3 with DDR4? quite the jump from 11th gen and curious how much of it is DDR5.

I know you're somewhat serious, but I get very irritated if the temps on anything get about 75C. To me, 100C 24/7 is completely unacceptable.

Same, its a thing for me.

Also have Intel actually said 100C is ok 24/7/365? or just they they can operate "up to" 100C.

I think if I was running something at extreme load for several hours like a long encode or something, I would be either throttling the clocks, temps or the power to avoid bouncing of tjmax situation. Not just to settle my temp OCD, but also power efficiency as the default placement of the v/f curve is ridiculous. Slow down these chips by a few % for a pretty big power saving.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Also have Intel actually said 100C is ok 24/7/365?

I can't remember where I read it, but I think Intel has said this. Granted, I'm not buying it as previous gen CPU's have proven less than reliable going above 90C for prolonged periods of time.

 

[sLowEnd]

@W1zzard any testing results for 12,13th, or 14th gen for RPCS3 with DDR4? quite the jump from 11th gen and curious how much of it is DDR5.


Same, its a thing for me.

Also have Intel actually said 100C is ok 24/7/365? or just they they can operate "up to" 100C.

I think if I was running something at extreme load for several hours like a long encode or something, I would be either throttling the clocks, temps or the power to avoid bouncing of tjmax situation. Not just to settle my temp OCD, but also power efficiency as the default placement of the v/f curve is ridiculous. Slow down these chips by a few % for a pretty big power saving.

It's probably worth looking at de8auer's interview with an Intel engineer on the topic

Edit: and in a later interview, he basically says he thinks that sort of operation would be fine (around 16:00 in the video), but it's not something they've actually tested

 

[FrostWolf]

Well, I made my decision and went 13700k due to lower prices and every benchmark I saw where the only major difference was in Blender and one or two other apps. I couldn’t justify an extra $60 for an i7-14700k with even higher wattage,, but I could justify two more P-cores with Hyperthreading.

I will likely undervolt it slightly to bring power usage down further, I’m good with 90-95% of the performance with lower temps and wattage. Also have one of the new Lian Li Galahad II LCD 280mm AIOs on the way. And doggoned if Amazon didn’t deliver the CPU same day, so now I’m waiting for the AIO (first world problems)…

Way to celebrate my raise.

 

[kraiggers]

Intel spec for pl1 and 2 is 125w and 253w I believe, but some mobos don't use intel's limits when pl1&2 is set to auto.

I feel that it's pretty much a requirement to fine tune an undervolt for these cpu's if you want somewhat manageable power usage(and tempuratures) for their clockrates, with an unlimited power limit.

@kraiggers derbauer did do a power limited test at around 80w for the 14900k, it cut the performance by nearly half.

I'm sorry to ask, but I can’t seem to find the Der8auer test you mentioned. Link or additional guidance, perhaps?

There were quite a number of tests I read about with the 12th gen in various power limited configurations. But it isn’t clear to me whether I’d get any meaningful additional performance out of a 13700 or 14700 at the same power limits as my current 12700 (PL1 75, PL2 125)

I mean, it *seems* like it should be more performant? More e-cores (from 4 to 8 to 12 on the 14700), along with the L2 and L3 bumps must be worth something… right…?

Obviously, I’d wait for the price to come down. I’m not in a rush...

 

[W1zzard]

I couldn’t justify an extra $60

Definitely agree, $60 is too much

 

[Gica]

14700K(F) PL1/2 125W - dangerously close to stock 13700K. I think that, in multiple tests, they are equal or there may even be surprises in applications that intensively use light loads because the 14700K works at higher frequencies and the 125W allows them to be reached. With the "Instant 6 GHz" option activated, the SC score in CPU-Z increases slightly, somewhere halfway between 13900K and 14900K and exceeds 13700K even in MT (reference: Guru 14900K review).
For an RTX 3070 Ti, 45W PL1 (65W for reserve) and 125W PL2 are sufficient. PL2 activates rarely and only when CPU demands are high (loading scenes, for example).

 

[kraiggers]

Apologies, Gica, but could you dumb this down a bit for me? Specifically the 45/125 setting? Or maybe you could run a direct comparison between 13700 and 14700 at 75/125?

I guess I’m trying to answer two fundamental questions:

1. Is it worth upgrading the 12700k in my SFF pc *at all*, given the limited cooling overhead and therefore power throttling/limiting 75/125 required?

2. If it *is* worthwhile (at some point), is there any reason *not* to use the 14700 over the 13700?

Unrelated question: my PL settings are not persisting through restarts, even though they should be, according to the Tuning app settings. Is there a trick or some subtlety that I’m missing to make this persist?

 

[Gica]

An interesting comparison would be 13700K stock versus 14700K@125W. Maybe we'll see a TPU review.

XTU
You can create profiles and activate them by "pair" with the application or by hotkeys. I prefer the shortcut and only for gaming.

 

[AnotherReader]

It's probably worth looking at de8auer's interview with an Intel engineer on the topic

Edit: and in a later interview, he basically says he thinks that sort of operation would be fine (around 16:00 in the video), but it's not something they've actually tested

They don't have to test it at 100C. Testing it at a much higher temperature, e.g. 150 C and plugging the numbers into Black's equation will give an estimate for the lifetime at 100C. In the equation below, J is the interconnect current density, N is a scaling factor dependent upon the diffusion process that ranges from 1 to 2, and T is the temperature of the interconnect.

 

[FrostWolf]

Definitely agree, $60 is too much

Absolutely. The 14700k is running $409 when cheap, and $419 after demand.

The 13700k is…$363.99.

Seems like a no-brainer, and it’s easier to keep cool. And it was delivered same day…I’m now waiting semi-patiently for my Galahad II LCD 280mm to arrive.

 

[Gica]

Only if IGP is needed
Here, the 14700KF is 8 euros cheaper than the 13700K.

 

[FrostWolf]

Only if IGP is needed
Here, the 14700KF is 8 euros cheaper than the 13700K.

I would like to keep Quicksync, so I’m good with having the K. However, here there’s not a great difference between the non-IGP versions either where I live (USD).

 

[Gica]

14700K is really an upgrade. Not a huge one, but it is an upgrade, not a refresh.
And it has two advantages over the 13700K:
1. Four extra e-cores that bring an increase in multi-threading performance or you can get the performance of 13700K with much lower consumption.
2. Better silicon, which allow you higher overclocking or, as the case may be, the frequencies of 13700K at lower voltage.
It's up to everyone if they think it's worth the price difference or not. Officially they have the same MSRP, but dealers will be left with 13700K in stock if they sell them at the same price.

 

[FrostWolf]

14700K is really an upgrade. Not a huge one, but it is an upgrade, not a refresh.
And it has two advantages over the 13700K:
1. Four extra e-cores that bring an increase in multi-threading performance or you can get the performance of 13700K with much lower consumption.
2. Better silicon, which allow you higher overclocking or, as the case may be, the frequencies of 13700K at lower voltage.
It's up to everyone if they think it's worth the price difference or not. Officially they have the same MSRP, but dealers will be left with 13700K in stock if they sell them at the same price.

More cores does not equal better silicon; it equals more cores. Whether higher overclocking can happen or not is really a lottery. The 14700k has a slightly higher clock speed out-of-box; that doesn’t mean previous unlocked 13th Intel CPUs couldn’t get that extra 200MHz, or more. That really depends on the yield.

As for the increase in multithreaded performance, it only exists under very specific, highly threaded workloads. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but as I’m not running Blender, or certain types of encoding, rendering, or crunching applications, I won’t benefit from those rare situations. I went over benchmark after benchmark, from those who are regarded as the best reviewers, and that’s what I saw time and time again. At the same price, the 14700k might be worth it. With the discount you can get the 13700k at right now, considering there’s no new die process, nothing different in the instruction set, and much higher energy consumption for gains only in very specific areas, I can’t see the value.

 

[lexluthermiester]

14700K is really an upgrade. Not a huge one, but it is an upgrade, not a refresh.
And it has two advantages over the 13700K:
1. Four extra e-cores that bring an increase in multi-threading performance or you can get the performance of 13700K with much lower consumption.
2. Better silicon, which allow you higher overclocking or, as the case may be, the frequencies of 13700K at lower voltage.
It's up to everyone if they think it's worth the price difference or not. Officially they have the same MSRP, but dealers will be left with 13700K in stock if they sell them at the same price.

While you make good points, you've left out an important one: Price. It's not an upgrade when you factor in price, even accounting for the sale of the 13700k being replaced. It's just not a worthy upgrade. From a 12700k? Ok, that's plausible. For a 12600k or 13600k, yes, that's a solid upgrade IF a user needs it.

 

[Gica]

More cores does not equal better silicon; it equals more cores. Whether higher overclocking can happen or not is really a lottery. The 14700k has a slightly higher clock speed out-of-box; that doesn’t mean previous unlocked 13th Intel CPUs couldn’t get that extra 200MHz, or more. That really depends on the yield.

As for the increase in multithreaded performance, it only exists under very specific, highly threaded workloads. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but as I’m not running Blender, or certain types of encoding, rendering, or crunching applications, I won’t benefit from those rare situations. I went over benchmark after benchmark, from those who are regarded as the best reviewers, and that’s what I saw time and time again. At the same price, the 14700k might be worth it. With the discount you can get the 13700k at right now, considering there’s no new die process, nothing different in the instruction set, and much higher energy consumption for gains only in very specific areas, I can’t see the value.

While you make good points, you've left out an important one: Price. It's not an upgrade when you factor in price, even accounting for the sale of the 13700k being replaced. It's just not a worthy upgrade. From a 12700k? Ok, that's plausible. For a 12600k or 13600k, yes, that's a solid upgrade IF a user needs it.

I think I was misunderstood. I'm talking about moving to 13700k/14700K from an older platform, not 13700K -> 14700K.

The rest of the statements stand, including the importance of the four extra e-cores. If multi-threading consumption bothers you (cooling, noise, bill, etc.) it seems that you can set 14700K (thanks to these extra cores) to PL 125-150W to get 13700K results in heavy loads. For light tasks there is no need for high consumption and they will remain at the 14700K level.
And, 14700K definitely increases your chances in the silicon lottery compared to 13700K, it doesn't matter if you use the gain for overclocking or increasing the energy efficiency of the processor.

According to the TPU review, the 13700K gets 30.781 pts in Cinebench R23 at a consumption >250W. 14700K surpasses it with PL1/2 set to 150W. You can optimize the consumption of the 13700K, but you cannot do it by reducing it to 150W.

Another example: 14700K(F)@150W versus 13700K
According to the 13700K TPU review (a mistake crept into the 14700K review), 13700K uses 220W for this benchmark.

 

[mahanddeem]

Can get a 13900K for $450, so NO WAY I'll get a 14700K

Or 7950X3D for $500

where can you get a 13900K for $450 (NEW)?

 

[lexluthermiester]

I think I was misunderstood. I'm talking about moving to 13700k/14700K from an older platform, not 13700K -> 14700K.

Ah, ok. Yes, it did seem like you were implying the 13700k->14700k jump.

 

[kawice]

Kabylake-like fake gen. It is for maintaining consumer buzz.

Rather a smoke screen for that they did not release Meteor Lake for desktops at all.
Probably due to underwhelming performance gains against 13th gen.

If they released this as a step forward, one can only wonder what was Meteor Lake for desktops actual performance.
Reminds me of 11th gen which was cosmetic refresh over 10th gen with less cores.

 

[THU31]

Rather a smoke screen for that they did not release Meteor Lake for desktops at all.
Probably due to underwhelming performance gains against 13th gen.

There was info they considered only releasing i5 Meteor Lake chips, and in my opinion they should have.

I haven't read a single positive thing about Raptor Lake refresh, so it would've been better to just ignore the top end. We would've gotten a very efficient 14600K on a new platform that would have a year to mature before Arrow Lake comes out.
But instead Arrow Lake will launch on a new platform and we'll have to deal with infancy issues, unstable BIOS-es and stuff.

 

[t3n4]

hey all. So setting together an i7 14700k with a 4080 both on a corsair custom loop no mater what i choose in bios it goes thernal throtling in cb23 and it goes 85-90C when gaming.. I tried llc i tried change pl1 and pl2 (it only get some good tems in gaming if i set 85W)Anyone can help plz??
Full Specs:
14700k
4080 frostbite
Z690 torpedo
Gskill Z ddr5 6400 cl32
Corsair xd3 pump
Corsair xc7 cpu block
2x Corsair xr7 rads
970 evo
Corsair rmx1000
Phanteks D30 as rad fans

 

[P4-630]

corsair custom loop no mater what i choose in bios it goes thernal throtling in cb23 and it goes 85-90C when gaming.

Did you remove all the plastic protection layers including from the CPU block?