Intel Core i9-14900K

[SoppingClam]

I basically swapped my i7-12700k for a i5-14600kf as I could really only get all core 5.0ghz with the 12700k or 5.1ghz but needed a lot more voltage. Using DDR5 @ 6ghz cl34 and RTX 4090 w/ a z790 board. Same as what was using with the i7-12700k

I noticed right away, that this CPU default voltages are far too high. Having set it to a maximum of 1.28v at 6ghz all core it maxes out at 150w in Cinebench 2024 and what ever I through at it, it will not crash. I also have the e-cores at 4.8 ghz and ring at 4.8ghz.

It seems odd that Intel has released the 14th gen to be power hungry by default and I have no idea why. Unless the silicon used was so varied, as a safeguard they just underclocked and overvolted. Either way, I'm pretty sure I could keep going but as I am not CPU bottlenecked in any game at 4K (been using 4k only for over a decade now. Get the GPU to do the work).. I wonder how far it can go.

 

[LuxZg]

For god's sake, it doesn't. At this point this is considered trolling. Take a close look at the picture, it's from hardware unboxed's review. Ignore everything else and just focus on the 7950x vs the 7950x 3d. This is system power, CPU power draw is around 230-250w for the 7950x, and around 150 for the 7950x 3d. So, the 7950x draws 66% more power for 3% more performance compared to the 7950x 3d.

Let me repeat it, 66% more power for 3% more performance. Now do you realize that the same scaling applies to the Intel cpus as well? Dropping power draw to 200w instead of 400w will only reduce performance by like 5%. In which case AMD is 5-10% more efficient, not 200-300% like you are claiming. If you want to compare efficiency, you do it at ISO power. It's obvious that a CPU with lower power limits will be more efficient than a CPU with higher power limits. That's why eg. the 14900t will be the most efficient CPU, cause it has a very low power limit.



View attachment 318707

Sorry, I was commenting on TPU article on TPU website and TPU forum that clearly showed graphs with AMD leading more than 2x vs Intel.

 

[SoppingClam]

I would just like to thank you for using my program as intended. I'd also like to note the i5-14600kf has performed our inhouse benches underclocked without fail more than any cpu before it

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

For gaming, there is only 1 winner..............

So, when it comes to performance per watt, overall performance in 1440p & 2160p and price for a gamer, AMD wins here overall, big time.

For productivity, Intel wins there. So it comes down to what you use your computer for.

I use my computer for surfing the internet (normal websites), listening to Spotify, watching YouTube, watching films / videos (MKV / MP4 files stored on my computer) and pictures (stored on my computer), editing and encoding a 4K / 4K DCI & 5.1K video from my 'DJI Mavic 3 Pro' drone sometimes (the CUDA cores on my NVIDIA GPU is more important than the CPU here) and playing games (in 1440p).

For this, my AMD CPU in my Mini-ITX computer is very nice for that.

 

[JustBenching]

For gaming, there is only 1 winner..............

The 14900k won in 2 out of 3 resolutions in the review you posted

I use my computer for surfing the internet (normal websites), listening to Spotify, watching YouTube, watching films / videos (MKV / MP4 files stored on my computer) and pictures (stored on my computer), editing and encoding a 4K / 4K DCI & 5.1K video from my 'DJI Mavic 3 Pro' drone sometimes (the CUDA cores on my NVIDIA GPU is more important than the CPU here) and playing games (in 1440p).

In those simple tasks AMD cpus draw a lot more power cause of the IO die. Just watching a youtube video needs 25-30w on an AMD cpu. Intel sits sipping power at 5-10w.

 

[tommys]

Question about the testing methodology: Which cooler is used to attain the scores? I assume it's the AIO, but it's not explicitly spelled out.
I am interested in seeing how much performance is crippled when using the U14S or D15. Of course I can see the temperatures, but we can never tell performance from just temperatures alone. There could be no effect, or a massive difference, we don't know.

 

[kapone32]

The 14900k won in 2 out of 3 resolutions in the review you posted


In those simple tasks AMD cpus draw a lot more power cause of the IO die. Just watching a youtube video needs 25-30w on an AMD cpu. Intel sits sipping power at 5-10w.

Who buys a 14900K to watch Youtube? Is that with the IGPU?

 

[Arco]

Yeah, my 7950x runs servers all the time. One of the main reasons I didn't want E-cores.

 

[JustBenching]

Who buys a 14900K to watch Youtube? Is that with the IGPU?

Wasn't talking specifically about the 14900k, but still, what kind of question is that. People with a 14900k don't watch YouTube?

 

[Arco]

Wasn't talking specifically about the 14900k, but still, what kind of question is that. People with a 14900k don't watch YouTube?

I think he is referring to spending all of your time idle. Which certainly is most computers. I feel like it would be important to compare 4 hours of idle and an hour or so of gaming and see which one requires more power in the long run. At least for the same work which is gaming.

For me, it doesn't matter the idle because CCD2 is almost always active hosting 3-4 game servers at once.

 

[JustBenching]

I think he is referring to spending all of your time idle. Which certainly is most computers. I feel like it would be important to compare 4 hours of idle and an hour or so of gaming and see which one requires more power in the long run. At least for the same work which is gaming.

For me, it doesn't matter the idle because CCD2 is almost always active hosting 3-4 game servers at once.

Gaming power draw is really irrelevant. I know benchmarks show intel pulling 2 billion watts but that hasn't been my experience. At 4k with a 4090 the 12900k barely if ever exceeded 60-70w, and now the 14900k usually stays below 100.

 

[kapone32]

Wasn't talking specifically about the 14900k, but still, what kind of question is that. People with a 14900k don't watch YouTube?

So all Intel chips are more efficient than Ryzen 4 chips? That seems contrary to the narrative. I have never seen my CPU go over 74 Watts but that doesn't matter. The fact remains that if you do nothing the Intel chip will be hotter and hungrier than it's AMD counterpart once you weigh ALL of the variables. The 14900K is the 13900KS for less money and that is a good thing. Preaching about what is not a good thing as such is like trying to put a square in a circle. If you like Intel be happy about it and try not to bring AMD into the equation on a negative every time.

 

[JustBenching]

So all Intel chips are more efficient than Ryzen 4 chips? That seems contrary to the narrative. I have never seen my CPU go over 74 Watts but that doesn't matter. The fact remains that if you do nothing the Intel chip will be hotter and hungrier than it's AMD counterpart once you weigh ALL of the variables. The 14900K is the 13900KS for less money and that is a good thing. Preaching about what is not a good thing as such is like trying to put a square in a circle. If you like Intel be happy about it and try not to bring AMD into the equation on a negative every time.

In light workloads like browsing the web and watching videos yes, intel are Way more efficient actually. Especially the dual ccd ones, they can pull as much as 7-8 times the power.

 

[kapone32]

In light workloads like browsing the web and watching videos yes, intel are Way more efficient actually. Especially the dual ccd ones, they can pull as much as 7-8 times the power.

I guess from your conviction that you have sat down with an AMD based PC and Intel based PC to come to that conclusion yourself and your argument is based on Youtube after all.

 

[JustBenching]

I guess from your conviction that you have sat down with an AMD based PC and Intel based PC to come to that conclusion yourself and your argument is based on Youtube after all.

Yes, I have multiple amd and Intel cpus.

Can you post your numbers to show us otherwise? 12900k with 2 videos streaming (twitch and YouTube) while browsing the web is between 6 to 7 watts. I'll post a picture when I'm back home. Can you do the same with your 3d?

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

The 14900k won in 2 out of 3 resolutions in the review you posted

This isn't just about the pure fps in the games alone. It's also about the price of the CPU itself, 'power draw' under gaming, 'price to performance' or 'cost per frame' and 'fps per watt' as well. It's the whole / total package here.

But if we ONLY use the pure fps performance alone. Then the video I posted shows this under gaming.

- In 1080p, the 7800X3D was 1% faster overall in fps and 5% slower overall on the '1% lows' over the 14900K.
- In 1440p, the 7800X3D was 2% faster overall in fps and 4% slower overall on the '1% lows' over the 14900K.
- In 2160p, the 7800X3D was 2% faster overall in fps and 2% slower overall on the '1% lows' over the 14900K.

So in total, they both are pretty much the same in fps performance here. The differences here are so small that it pretty much doesn't matters.

And we are also talking about an AMD CPU (not even the best AMD CPU overall) that cost 369 US dollars against Intel's top of the line CPU here that costs a whopping 592 US dollars. That's like 61% in price difference.

Again, if we also take the other important things into consideration here that does matters a lot to many, like price of the CPU itself, 'power draw' under gaming, 'price to performance' or 'cost per frame' and 'fps per watt' as well into the picture here, the 14900K gets slaughtered in all directions like no tomorrow, as the review I posted over pretty clearly shows.

In those simple tasks AMD cpus draw a lot more power cause of the IO die. Just watching a youtube video needs 25-30w on an AMD cpu. Intel sits sipping power at 5-10w.

Now we are talking about so little power draw (in watt) anyways here that this doesn't really matters for a stationary computer. For a laptop, this might matter WAY WAY more.

But yeah, as I stated earlier, for productivity tasks, Intel is ahead of AMD here. So it all comes down to what you want to do on your computer.

 

[mahirzukic2]

This isn't just about the pure fps in the games alone. It's also about the price of the CPU itself, 'power draw' under gaming, 'price to performance' or 'cost per frame' and 'fps per watt' as well. It's the whole / total package here.

But if we ONLY use the pure fps performance alone. Then the video I posted shows this under gaming.

- In 1080p, the 7800X3D was 1% faster overall in fps and 5% slower overall on the '1% lows' over the 14900K.
- In 1440p, the 7800X3D was 2% faster overall in fps and 4% slower overall on the '1% lows' over the 14900K.
- In 2160p, the 7800X3D was 2% faster overall in fps and 2% slower overall on the '1% lows' over the 14900K.

So in total, they both are pretty much the same in fps performance here. The differences here are so small that it pretty much doesn't matters.

And we are also talking about an AMD CPU (not even the best AMD CPU overall) that cost 369 US dollars against Intel's top of the line CPU here that costs a whopping 592 US dollars. That's like 61% in price difference.

Again, if we also take the other important things into consideration here that does matters a lot to many, like price of the CPU itself, 'power draw' under gaming, 'price to performance' or 'cost per frame' and 'fps per watt' as well into the picture here, the 14900K gets slaughtered in all directions like no tomorrow, as the review I posted over pretty clearly shows.

Now we are talking about so little power draw (in watt) anyways here that this doesn't really matters for a stationary computer. For a laptop, this might matter WAY WAY more.

But yeah, as I stated earlier, for productivity tasks, Intel is ahead of AMD here. So it all comes down to what you want to do on your computer.

Just like it always did. You buy your computer and the components in it in relation to what you will be doing THE MOST with the said computer. This never stopped being true and never will.

 

[JustBenching]

This isn't just about the pure fps in the games alone. It's also about the price of the CPU itself, 'power draw' under gaming, 'price to performance' or 'cost per frame' and 'fps per watt' as well. It's the whole / total package here.

But if we ONLY use the pure fps performance alone. Then the video I posted shows this under gaming.

- In 1080p, the 7800X3D was 1% faster overall in fps and 5% slower overall on the '1% lows' over the 14900K.
- In 1440p, the 7800X3D was 2% faster overall in fps and 4% slower overall on the '1% lows' over the 14900K.
- In 2160p, the 7800X3D was 2% faster overall in fps and 2% slower overall on the '1% lows' over the 14900K.

So in total, they both are pretty much the same in fps performance here. The differences here are so small that it pretty much doesn't matters.

And we are also talking about an AMD CPU (not even the best AMD CPU overall) that cost 369 US dollars against Intel's top of the line CPU here that costs a whopping 592 US dollars. That's like 61% in price difference.

Again, if we also take the other important things into consideration here that does matters a lot to many, like price of the CPU itself, 'power draw' under gaming, 'price to performance' or 'cost per frame' and 'fps per watt' as well into the picture here, the 14900K gets slaughtered in all directions like no tomorrow, as the review I posted over pretty clearly shows.

Now we are talking about so little power draw (in watt) anyways here that this doesn't really matters for a stationary computer. For a laptop, this might matter WAY WAY more.

But yeah, as I stated earlier, for productivity tasks, Intel is ahead of AMD here. So it all comes down to what you want to do on your computer.

But amds top of the line cpu (that is also more expensive than the 14900k) is slower in both games and productivity than the 14900k. So saying "this isn't even the top amd cpu" is irrelevant. If you care about fps per dollar you are of course not going to buy a 14900k, but you are also not buying a 7800x 3d. They are both pretty bad at performance per dollar but at least one of them isn't really a gaming cpu. The 7800x 3d is only good at games but even in those it's not the best in perf per dollar.

It's 2023, 8 cores at anything above 250 euros is just too much.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

But amds top of the line cpu (that is also more expensive than the 14900k) is slower in both games and productivity than the 14900k. So saying "this isn't even the top amd cpu" is irrelevant. If you care about fps per dollar you are of course not going to buy a 14900k, but you are also not buying a 7800x 3d. They are both pretty bad at performance per dollar but at least one of them isn't really a gaming cpu. The 7800x 3d is only good at games but even in those it's not the best in perf per dollar.

It's 2023, 8 cores at anything above 250 euros is just too much.

Now we are talking about a gaming CPU here. If I want a CPU that does everything in a good enough way, I would still take an AMD CPU like the 7800X3D (because I use a Mini-ITX case) as it have a more balanced (doesn't directly mean be the best at everything) performance on most things and so on over those Intel CPU's that are pretty insane in performance under productivity tasks and are also good in gaming, but needs a damn nuclear power plant to power the thing and needs a freezer in the size of a car to cool the CPU properly to be this good.

Having things more balanced when it comes to the price of the CPU itself, 'power draw' both under normal usage and gaming, 'price to performance' (for most tasks) or 'cost per frame' (for gaming) and 'fps per watt' (for gaming) and having a pretty good (not best) performance in other things in general as well, is way more important for many. Yes, the key here is 'balance'.

For AMD, you don't have ANY drawbacks for being the best gaming CPU's overall, but have a drawback in productivity for not being super duper power hungry. On Intel, you have HUUUUGE drawbacks for being on par with AMD in gaming and also have HUGE drawbacks for being the best CPU in productivity.

I'll take the CPU will the least drawbacks and the best balance any days of the week.

 

[JustBenching]

Now we are talking about a gaming CPU here. If I want a CPU that does everything in a good enough way, I would still take an AMD CPU as those have a more balanced (doesn't directly mean be the best at everything) performance and so on over those Intel CPU's that are pretty insane in performance under productivity tasks, but needs a damn nuclear power plant to power the thing and needs a freezer to cool the CPU.

Having things more balanced when it comes to the price of the CPU itself, 'power draw' under gaming, 'price to performance' or 'cost per frame' and 'fps per watt' and having a pretty good (not best) performance in other things in general as well, is way more important for many.

For AMD, you don't have ANY drawbacks for being the best gaming CPU's overall, but have a drawback for not being super duper power hungry. On Intel, you have drawbacks for being on par with AMD in gaming and also have HUGE drawbacks for being the best CPU in productivity.

I'll take the CPU will the least drawbacks any days of the week.

I'm freezing a 14900k with a small single tower air cooler, but yeah, whatever man.

AMD no drawbacks, just super expensive, draws a gazillion watts at idle doing nothing, hard to cool, can't get memory above 6000, igpu sucks and has no support like quicksync, draws a gazillion watts for lightly threaded productivity applications. But yea, no drawbacks at all

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

I'm freezing a 14900k with a small single tower air cooler, but yeah, whatever man.

AMD no drawbacks, just super expensive, draws a gazillion watts at idle doing nothing, hard to cool, can't get memory above 6000, igpu sucks and has no support like quicksync, draws a gazillion watts for lightly threaded productivity applications. But yea, no drawbacks at all

Try to do similar things in a small Mini-ITX case. You will pretty much instantly realize that AMD have advantages here in pretty much all things, because it's more balanced.

EDIT: You say AMD is super expensive?

So you say it's not super expensive to pay 592 US dollars for the 14900K CPU that comes with HUUUGE power draws to stay competetive in gaming with the AMD CPU that cost 369 US dollars (61% less) and uses way less power?

And the idle power on both AMD and Intel CPU's are so low to begin with that it doesn't matter for stationary computers, AT ALL.

I think you might want to change out your calculator. It seems broken.

 

[JustBenching]

Try to do similar things in a small Mini-ITX case. You will pretty much instantly realize that AMD have advantages here in pretty much all things, because it's more balanced.

EDIT: You say AMD is super expensive?

So you say it's not super expensive to pay 592 US dollars for the 14900K CPU thast has HUUUGE power draws to stay competetive in gaming with the AMD CPU that cost 369 US dollars (61% less)?

I think you might want to change out your calculator. It seems broken.

You said you need a freezer to cool it. I told you that's not the case, now you are changing the argument into mini cases. Man just give it a rest already. Amd cpus are harder to cool

Yea, amd is super expensive. The only cpus that can match Intel's offers in both gaming and productivity are more expensive.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

You said you need a freezer to cool it. I told you that's not the case, now you are changing the argument into mini cases. Man just give it a rest already. Amd cpus are harder to cool

Yes, you either need a massive air cooler that would be in the same size as my whole Mini-ITX case or a freezer to cool the 14900K to a point that it would run as optimized / much stock as possible.

Yea, amd is super expensive. The only cpus that can match Intel's offers in both gaming and productivity are more expensive.

But those (most users) who cares about good enough gaming and productivity performance in general, 'power usage' both under normal usage and gaming, 'price to performance' (for most tasks) or 'cost per frame' (for gaming) and 'fps per watt' (for gaming) and having a pretty good (not best) performance in other things in general as well, aka having a very good balance here overall, will NEVER EVER go and buy the most expensive CPU that they can find anyways.

They will simply buy the CPU that gives the most value for the money that gives the most balanced performance overall the CPU gives.

And again, it's not that easy with an Intel CPU like the 14900K if you are using a Mini-ITX case. It gets WAAAAAAAY more complicated then over just using an AMD CPU here then.

 

[JustBenching]

Yes, you either need a massive air cooler that would be in the same size as my whole Mini-ITX case or a freezer to cool the 14900K to a point that it would run as optimized / much stock as possible.

But I'm using a small single tower air cooler. What are you talking about man?

But those (most users) who cares about good enough gaming and productivity performance in general, 'power usage' both under normal usage and gaming, 'price to performance' (for most tasks) or 'cost per frame' (for gaming) and 'fps per watt' (for gaming) and having a pretty good (not best) performance in other things in general as well, aka having a very good balance here overall, will NEVER EVER go and buy the most expensive CPU that they can find anyways.

They will simply buy the CPU that gives the most value for the money that gives the most balanced performance overall the CPU gives.

And again, it's not that easy with an Intel CPU like the 14900K if you are using a Mini-ITX case. It gets WAAAAAAAY more complicated then over just using an AMD CPU here then.

Users who need a balanced system don't buy amd, cause they are not balanced at all. They sacrifice lots of mt performance for 3% gaming performance. Who the heck would buy a 7800x 3d when it cost as much as the 13700k? Lol, balanced, sure.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

But I'm using a small single tower air cooler. What are you talking about man?

Dude, when 360mm AIO's have problems cooling the 14900K CPU out of the box (as many reviews shows), then how do you expect me to believe you on this?

Sure, you can probably tweak the CPU to not run that hot, but at what performance loss?