Intel Core i9-14900K

[fevgatos]

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?

I don't care if you belive me or not.

What performance loss? About 1%, lol.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

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.

Actually, those normal users wouldn't even choose the 7800X3D to begin with. They would go for something like the 7700 / 7900 or 7800X. It's the gamers who would go for the 7800X3D over any other CPU's out there.

I don't care if you belive me or not.

What performance loss? About 1%, lol.

Do you have any stats / pictures to show to prove that?

 

[fevgatos]

Actually, those normal users wouldn't even choose the 7800X3D to begin with. They would go for something like the 7700 / 7900 or 7800X. It's the gamers who would go for the 7800X3D over any other CPU's out there.

I'm a gamer, I went for the 14900k.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

I'm a gamer, I went for the 14900k.

Not a true gamer. If you do a lot of productivity on top of gaming, then you are a mixed user and not a gamer only. And when I say 'gamer only', I mean gaming most of the time while surfing the internet a little, listening to music and messaging your gaming buddies here and there in between your gaming sessions.

I personally, i'm a mixed user.

 

[fevgatos]

Do you have any stats / pictures to show to prove that?

13900k, 41161 score at 85c. Is that proof enough?

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

13900k, 41161 score at 85c. Is that proof enough?

Just remember that even though you are able to cool the CPU with the cooler you have, you also have to take into consideration that all other components in the computer will hurt if it gets to hot inside the case. Your picture shows the CPU using a whopping 261 watt. That heat has to go somewhere.

Again, that's the main issue with small computer builds. AMD is the ONLY choice for a small computer build if you actually want to have a working computer for longer than a year without having the components killed by extreme heat.

 

[fevgatos]

Just remember that even though you are able to cool the CPU with the cooler you have, you also have to take into consideration that all other components in the computer will hurt if it gets to hot inside the case. Your picture shows the CPU using a whopping 261 watt. That heat has to go somewhere.

Again, that's the main issue with small computer builds. AMD is the ONLY choice for a small computer build if you actually want to have a working computer for longer than a year without having the components killed by extreme heat.

Your original argument was that you need a 990 aio to cool it. Can we agree you were wrong on that one?

I can limit it to 200w and still hit over 37k so...

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

Your original argument was that you need a 990 aio to cool it. Can we agree you were wrong on that one?

I can limit it to 200w and still hit over 37k so...

Yes, it's 100% true that some 360mm AIO's has issues cooling the 13900K / 14900K CPU at stock settings.

200w on a CPU is still not doable in a small computer case.

What is your score if you take the CPU you have down to 88w TDP (same as PPT on AMD)?

Anything over 125w PPT / TDP on a CPU is going to cook the rest of the computer with a small computer case.

 

[fevgatos]

Yes, it's 100% true that some 360mm AIO's has issues cooling the 13900K / 14900K CPU at stock settings.

200w on a CPU is still not doable in a small computer case.

What is your score if you take the CPU you have down to 88w TDP (same as PPT on AMD)?

Anything over 125w PPT / TDP on a CPU is going to cook the rest of the computer with a small computer case.

I don't tknow, havent tested it, but since the 12900k could get 25k at 125w (undervolted), I assume the 14900k can hit over 30k.

Of course you can cool 125w on a small computer case, wtf are you talking about? My laptop can draw 150w and it's a tiny 14", wth are you saying dude. How small a case are you talking about? You can even a fit a 4070 in a mini ITX

 

[Lew Zealand]

I don't tknow, havent tested it, but since the 12900k could get 25k at 125w (undervolted), I assume the 14900k can hit over 30k.

You don't have to assume anything, W1zz did the tests for you. 31+k at 125W:

Looking at that article, it's clear that the 14900K should be a 200W CPU as it loses very little performance with much saner temps and power use when restricted to 200W. But when looking at this very chart above you see why Intel uses tons of power indiscriminately: to get to the top of the chart no matter what.

 

[fevgatos]

You don't have to assume anything, W1zz did the tests for you. 31+k at 125W:

Looking at that article, it's clear that the 14900K should be a 200W CPU as it loses very little performance with much saner temps and power use when restricted to 200W, but when looking at this very chart above you see why Intel uses tons of power indiscriminately: to get to the top of the chart no matter what.

Yeah, was talking about undervolted though. I just tested it, 34.500 @ 125w

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

Of course you can cool 125w on a small computer case, wtf are you talking about? My laptop can draw 150w and it's a tiny 14", wth are you saying dude. How small a case are you talking about? You can even a fit a 4070 in a mini ITX

A 4070 has a TDP of 200w while my 3060 Ti has a TDP of 220w. Small differences here. And 200-220w on a GPU is considered small power usage.

Just because a Mini-ITX case can handle a GPU that has a TDP of 200-220w, doesn't mean you can just put in a CPU that is super power hungry just because of that.

It's already enough for a small computer case to cool a GPU. Adding a power hungry CPU on top of that will not mix good together for the rest of the computer here.

 

[fevgatos]

A 4070 has a TDP of 200w while my 3060 Ti has a TDP of 220w. Small differences here. And 200-220w on a GPU is considered small power usage.

Just because a Mini-ITX case can handle a GPU that has a TDP of 200-220w, doesn't mean you can just put in a CPU that is super power hungry just because of that.

It's already enough for a small computer case to cool a GPU. Adding a power hungry CPU on top of that will not mix good together for the rest of the computer here.

The 14900k isn't particularly power hungry unless you want it to be. In fact, it's the most efficient CPU at 35w, perfect for your mITX usecases. You literally can't get anything more efficient than that

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

The 14900k isn't particularly power hungry unless you want it to be. In fact, it's the most efficient CPU at 35w, perfect for your mITX usecases. You literally can't get anything more efficient than that

35w is for micro sized computers without any dedicated GPU's. Nobody want to run a desktop sized CPU at 35w.

We are talking about a full fledged stationary computer here that will use all from 85w and up to like 250w (stock).

Another question is why would ANYONE buy a super expensive and power hungry CPU just to be forced to clock it down to the performance of an Ultra Thin laptop, just to not boil the rest of the computer?

Take my computer case as an example. It's a 'Phanteks Evolv Shift XT D-RGB (Black) (Modular)' It's a 13.5-17.4 litre case that has a limit of 72mm height on an air cooled CPU cooler or 240mm limit on an AIO cooler.

What CPU would you put inside that case with the air cooling you can use on it without changing a single option in the BIOS for the CPU if you want to have a fully working computer for at least 5 years?

 

[fevgatos]

For people to understand the difference between running stock out of the box and manually tuning your system.

The last of us, the heaviest game that exists, on the heaviest area of the game. On the right side, a 14900k stock out of the box. These are the numbers you see on the reviews. 200w / 215 fps.

On the left manually tuned and memory tuned, 120w / 250 fps.

We basically doubled our fps / watt while also increasing the framerate. I hope you get the point

ght

What CPU would you put inside that case with the air cooling you can use on it without changing a single option in the BIOS for the CPU if you want to have a fully working computer for at least 5 years?

If I'm not allowed to change a single option in the bios (why not?) I probably wouldn't have a PC. But if you are putting a gun to my head, any non k Intel CPU. Probably 12900 or 13700

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

If I'm not allowed to change a single option in the bios (why not?) I probably wouldn't have a PC. But if you are putting a gun to my head, any non k Intel CPU. Probably 12900 or 13700

Both of them is as hot if not hotter than the 7800X3D and perform way worser in games than the 7800X3D. All 3 CPU's mentioned here will hit it's max temp limit in a small Mini-ITX computer case anyways.

Then I can rather just go for the 7800X3D and have the best possible gaming performance out of it. The 7800X3D is also a bit cheaper than the 12900 and 13700 as well.

Oh also. As most casual gamers doesn't really do much in the UEFI / BIOS, I will go after what the stock performance and power usage is from the CPU's here.

 

[fevgatos]

Both of them is as hot if not hotter than the 7800X3D and perform way worser in games than the 7800X3D.

Sure if you have no idea about the bios, but the 7800x 3d performs way worse and consumes more watt at anything other than games. Horrible CPU unless you are building a PS5 replacement. Also in a mini ITX the 7800x 3d is absolutely useless since you are not pairing it with a 4090. Gaming performance will be similar to an i5 12400 that costs half....

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

Sure if you have no idea about the bios, but the 7800x 3d performs way worse and consumes more watt at anything other than games. Horrible CPU unless you are building a PS5 replacement. Also in a mini ITX the 7800x 3d is absolutely useless since you are not pairing it with a 4090. Gaming performance will be similar to an i5 12400 that costs half....

I personally knows a lot and most things in my UEFI BIOS. I'm however talking about the normal gamers that just want to put a gaming computer together and play the games they have right away without fiddling with other things.

Sure, the 7800X3D loses to the 14900K in productivity programs, no one is denying that. But what you don't understand is that there are A LOT more gamers out there that will benefit a CPU like the 7800X3D way way more not just for the gaming performance alone, but for the price and the lesser heat it makes towards the other components over how few that actually benefits the extra power and heat a 14900K delivers for tasks that require that. Because in what way would a 14900K benefit a gamer over what a 7800X3D does when you look at the price alone on them?

You see what i'm trying to say here?

Yes, there are way more gamers that will benefit a more pure gaming CPU with lower power usages and lower heat delivery in what those are using their computers for in general over those few that use their computers for CPU heavy things that will need the power a 14900K delivers, but comes with some massive downsides that are not optimal without a HUGE CPU cooler and a computer case without a billion fans in it.

Most normal users use their computer for tasks outside of gaming that will never require a 14900K or even a 7800X3D to be super fast and optimized for their usage anyways. So the only thing a 7800X3D benefits peoples on, is the gaming performance and the 14900K benefits the few peoples that uses their computers for super CPU heavy tasks.

I came from an 'Intel Core i5-4690K' CPU on my earlier computer before I did build the new one now. And the time it takes to open most 'normal programs' isn't really that much faster on my 'Ryzen 7 7700' CPU over how it was on my old 'Intel Core i5-4690K' CPU. The difference is however MASSIVE when it comes to do more heavy tasks inside programs that the new AMD CPU just runs circles around the old Intel CPU I had.

So for just the casual users usages, even a dirt cheap 'Ryzen 5 5600' will perform as good and open programs as fast as a 14900K in those basic tasks.

 

[fevgatos]

So for just the casual users usages, even a dirt cheap 'Ryzen 5 5600' will perform as good and open programs as fast as a 14900K in those basic tasks.

For casual users a 7800x 3d is useless since they don't have a 4090 and they don't play at 1080p. So what's your point exactly?

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

For casual users a 7800x 3d is useless since they don't have a 4090 and they don't play at 1080p. So what's your point exactly?

The point is that normal gamers that also does 'normal tasks' on their computers have no need for anything more than a 7800X3D CPU. Heck, even a 'Ryzen 7 7700' CPU like I have will just do gaming perfectly fine with the correct GPU.

If you specifically are doing the few tasks that require the maximum power the 14900K can deliver, sure, go for that CPU. But that 14900K CPU will not benefit anyone AT ALL in anything except for those few who needs that extra power in those few tasks that kinda needs the power from the 14900K.

So again, why should I get a 14900K when I can get a 'Ryzen 7 7700' or Ryzen 7 7800X3D' CPU that will just do most normal things as fast as the 14900K and will do gaming perfectly fine with most GPU's as most peoples doesn't even have a 4090 GPU to begin with?

Not only that, but the 'Ryzen 7' CPUs here wont throttle much or anything at all even if they reach 90-95 degree celcius.

 

[fevgatos]

So again, why should I get a 14900K when I can get a 'Ryzen 7 7700' CPU that will just do most normal things as fast as the 14900K and will do gaming perfectly fine with most GPU's as most peoples doesn't even have a 4090 GPU WITHOUT having the CPU throttle like crazy because of heat in my small computer case?

Τhe 7700 will do nothing as fast as the 14900k. The 14900k is 2 times faster in everything, games included. The heck are you talking about, the 7700 is a slow CPU nowadays, it's on par with a 3 gen old i5 12600k lol.

If people don't have a 4090 then they don't need a 7800x 3d either.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

Τhe 7700 will do nothing as fast as the 14900k. The 14900k is 2 times faster in everything, games included. The heck are you talking about, the 7700 is a slow CPU nowadays, it's on par with a 3 gen old i5 12600k lol.

If people don't have a 4090 then they don't need a 7800x 3d either.

Don't forget this.

The 7700 is 11.5% less powerful / slower over the 14900K (both stock) in gaming at the resolution most peoples prefer to game at today and have the same speed and performance when it comes to normal / casual usage. And that's while the 14900K is 81% more expensive over the 7700 (in this case) here in Norway today. A lil 11.5% more gaming performance and equal performance under normal / casual use for a WHOPPING 81% higher price. That's hilariously bad price to performance ratio in every single points that is possible to make out of it. The ONLY place where the 14900K is worth it is if you are doing such CPU heavy tasks that needs the full power the 14900K can push out every single day in and out 95% of the times you are using the computer. And that's pretty much it. Other than that, it's not even remotely close to be worth it for other normal use cases.

So where do you get the '14900k is 2 times faster in everything, games included' fantasy from?

Sure, in heavy rendering, productivity programs and such, the 14900K will be A LOT more powerful than the 7700 and 7800X3D, but you have to pay A LOT for that both for the CPU itself and a computer case with enough fans / cooling that can cool the whole system good enough. But again, extremely few peoples are using such CPU heavy programs on a daily basis that it wont matter at all on how much more powerful those Intel CPU's are at this for most peoples.

 

[tommys]

at what performance loss?

At stock clocks? None. The 14900k will hit 89C on cinebench on its hottest core limited at 320w using a 280mm aio, scoring better than if the power limit was removed completely.
At stock wattage, it would of course be cooler, and we have the score for Stock in this review on page 6, at 38,746.
This nonsense about cooling is utter sensationalism. You're letting the CPU take in as much power as it can get and it gets hot? Big surprise!

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

At stock clocks? None. The 14900k will hit 89C on cinebench on its hottest core limited at 320w using a 280mm aio, scoring better than if the power limit was removed completely.
At stock wattage, it would of course be cooler, and we have the score for Stock in this review on page 6, at 38,746.
This nonsense about cooling is utter sensationalism. You're letting the CPU take in as much power as it can get and it gets hot? Big surprise!

No matter how the CPU cooler alone is, the heat still has to go somewhere. And 250w with heat is still a lot more than 85-125w with heat.

So no matter how good the CPU coolers is capable of cooling the actual CPU, the heat from the CPU will still affect the other components in the computer case in many ways anyways.

And that's the whole point of this when we are talking about gamers and normal users on what they actually would prefer to use.

 

[tommys]

the heat still has to go somewhere

If your case recirculates heat to other parts from your CPU heatsink, it's either a pretty bad case or you have a pretty bad airflow.
Thankfully, fans are cheap, and YouTube tutorials are free!